[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26208-26843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-40503]



MTC-00016173

From: Sage Major
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    I am a software engineer in San Diego California. And as such I 
am very much involved with computers. What I have recently heard 
about the Governments choice to settle the Anti trust case against 
Microsoft is disheartening. I expected that the government would 
take put the consumers who have been harmed by Microsoft first. In 
the last 5 years I have purchased 8 new computers, each one came 
with a Microsoft operating system, of those 8 I still use 3, but 
only 1 is running a Microsoft OS, OS as part of their bundling 
requirements I effectively purchased 8 copies of the same software 
to run on one computer. I believe that as part of their settlement 
Microsoft should be required to follow open standards prevented by 
law from extending those standards in a closed fashion. For example, 
the Keberos spec, which they embraced then changed so that their 
OS'' would not inter operate properly with other operating 
systems such as Solaris and Linux. They should also be required to 
open their standards for many of their products such as the 
networking so that SAMBA can be made to work properly with windows.
    Also I feel that Microsoft should be required to open the source 
of the operating systems they are no longer supporting, thus 
allowing anyone to fix the problems that Microsoft will no longer 
fix, I am not suggesting that they give away their current or 
previous OS (XP and 2000/ME) but rather that they open windows 95, 
98 and NT which they no longer support.
    Respectfully
    Sage Major
    Sage Major Software Engineer
    Email: [email protected]
    web: http://www.vertel.com
    Phone: (858) 824-4158
    Mail: 5825 Oberlin Drive suite 300
    San Diego CA, 92121



MTC-00016174

From: Keith Hudson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that what is going on is shameful. I do not see the 
place for politics in legal matters.
    Fact: Microsoft has hurt people. They have hurt you and have 
hurt me. Was this law suit brought forth on legit reasons? Or was it 
just to find a temporary source of revenue?
    I get the feeling it is like the lawsuit brought against the 
tobacco companies. We now have a legal to sell class 1 carcinogen, 
which requires no licensing to purchase. Why because people do not 
matter even when the issue is cancer and death. What matters is 
money (note 1). So given that Microsoft only hurt people and no one 
actually died... I expect this to end up just the same.
    I want Justice. Will I get some???
    I can guess the answer...No.
    Microsoft owns you.
    Keith Hudson
    (Registered Voter)
    note1: Some people have referred that the ill effects of lost 
economy/jobs to certain areas are reason enough to maintain the 
tobacco industry. I stand affirmed that the people and economy of 
tobacco is smaller then the population dying from it.



MTC-00016175

From: Chris Vargas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to express my strong concern that the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft does not go far enough to punish Microsoft 
for proven monopolistic activities. Not only that, it actually 
includes wording that could threaten other operating systems'' 
existences, thereby strengthening Microsoft's monopoly.
    In a recent column, industry expert Robert Cringely points out 
that Microsoft will not have to open its APIs to non-commercial 
entities; that could easily be seen as allowing Microsoft to lock 
out Linux and FreeBSD developers from allowing access to Microsoft 
servers via a tool called Samba. This same tool allows my Macintosh 
to access Microsoft servers; it could easily be locked out if this 
settlement goes through. Everyone in the computer industry knows 
that Microsoft takes advantage of its monopolistic position on a 
daily basis. We hoped that the remedies would try to reign Microsoft 
in. These remedies do not do so, and in fact set up the possibility 
of killing off one of the best non-Microsoft OSes currently 
available.
    Christopher Vargas
    2205 N Pollard St
    Arlington VA 22207-3813



MTC-00016176

From: Miles Pickering
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement. My main 
objection is that the settlement lacks sufficient enforcement 
provisions and is an invitation to further legal proceedings that 
could take decades to resolve. A three person team is hardly 
sufficient to monitor the activities of a multi thousand person 
organization.
    There are many other objections that I have, but that is the 
simplest.
    Thank you,
    Miles Pickering
    851 Florida St.
    San Francisco, CA 94110
    www.4by6.com



MTC-00016177

From: Robert L. Scala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft Settlement falls short of 
its goal of restoring comptition to the operating systems and 
middleware markets. I have been a software engineer for 22 years, 
and have watched this nascent industry go through many changes. One 
of the distressing developments is software vendors'' use of 
their products as agents to influence customers'' future 
purchases. This is similar but not identical to electric razors 
working better with ``compatible'' razor blades, thus 
influencing future purchases. The difference is that while other 
companies can easily produce competing razor blades, software is so 
complex that producing a compatible product can be impossible.
    I have been frustrated by the proprietary protocols of many 
software products produced by many companies over the years, not 
just Microsoft. But those products were all vulnerable to competing 
products that sold both razor and blade. But with Microsoft's 
monopoly on operating systems and office software, effective 
competition is impossible. If microsoft makes a better razor, that's 
fine, as long as others can compete to make a better blade.
    The problem I see with the proposed settlement is that in some 
ways it also acts as an agent to ensure that customers purchase more 
Microsoft products. This may sould like a bit of a stretch, but the 
fine print may grant Microsoft broad powers, such as certifying the 
authenticity and vitality of a competitor (III.J.2.c) before 
providing that competitor with information required in other 
sections of the agreement.
    This settlement stinks. Like the Trojan Horse, it looks good on 
the outside, but the details make it ineffective, and give Microsoft 
some powers it did not have in the first place. It's time that the 
software I buy stops working against me. That's what I hoped from 
this agreement. The whole agreement needs to be tightened up. In 
particular: P.III.A This section should include a prohibition 
against retaliation against OEMs that supply a single non-Microsoft 
operating system on their products. As a customer, I would like the 
option to purchase a computer from a major vendor with a non-
Microsoft operating system, without also purchasing Windows.
    I believe that this section misses the mark because dual-boot 
machines are niche-market items and not a threat to Microsoft's 
operating systems monopoly. It is the single-boot, non-Microsoft 
machines that challenge this monopoly. P.III.J.1.a These exceptions 
should be eliminated, as true security does not depend on the 
obscurity of the protocols. Secure systems, and the trust of the 
general public, are better served by using only published and well 
documented encryption systems. P.III.J.2 This is the big one. This 
provides Microsoft the vehicle to withhold APIs and interoperability 
protocols from, for example, vendors of free software. Since 
recently Microsoft has declared Linux the single biggest threat to 
Windows, it is strange that Microsoft will be allowed to shut out 
this important segment of the competitive landscape.
    I don't see any added burden to Microsoft if they are required 
to put the APIs and interoperability protocols in the public domain. 
That way their main rivals will be able to compete fairly in their 
effort to provide customers better software. And isn't this what the 
whole Settlement Agreement is all about? I know little about 
antitrust law, so I can't comment on the details of this antitrust 
case or the appropriateness of the

[[Page 26209]]

proposed remedy. But I know software, and I'm sure that if the goal 
of the proposed remedy is to restore competition to the software 
industry, it will fail.
    Sincerely yours,
    Rob Scala
    Robert Scala
    Scala Systems-custom software development
    860-443-5702
    http://www.scalasystems.com



MTC-00016178

From: Mark Shepard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a software engineer with over 10 years experience, I believe 
the Proposed Final Judgement should -NOT- be approved, 
for the following reason: The PFJ too narrowly defines 
``API''. Undocumented APIs allow Microsoft to prevent 
third-parties from creating software for Windows. Instead, the PFJ 
should require this: Each time and in every case where Microsoft 
releases ANY ``object code'' to anyone or any group, 
Microsoft should also be required to release ANY AND ALL source-code 
which defines the INTERFACES the aforementioned ``object 
code'' depends on, requires and/or optionally is able to use. 
Further, this ``interface source-code'' (a.k.a. 
``header files'') should be released under a license which 
allows unrestricted copying, re-publishing in any form, and use of 
the information by anyone, whether part of the original group to 
which Microsoft released it or not.
    I believe the current definition of API is such a serious defect 
in the PFJ that it alone will negate the value of the entire PFJ.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Shepard
    Software Engineering Consultant
    Member IEEE and ACM
    B.S. Computer Engineering
    Dallas, TX
    [email protected]



MTC-00016179

From: damon.schmidt
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Problems with the Proposed FInal Judgment in summary:
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    * Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    * The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    * The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    * The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    * The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    * The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    * The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    * The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    * Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running Linux.
    (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    * Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs- including regional ``white box'' OEMs which 
are historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    * The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest, and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    sincerely,
    Damon A. Schmidt



MTC-00016180

From: dan gavin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is an awful bad idea.
    Not only are you letting Microsoft buy a verdict from their 
software, but now they are also begenning to try to monopolize even 
more markets with their closed API Windows Media format that DVD 
makers are starting to support.
    All I ask, is that you please look into just what Microsoft is 
trying to do with their posistion with their market power to 
monopolize more than just software.
    Thank you for your time.
    Dan Gavin
    339 North Ave.
    Wood-Ridge, NJ 07075



MTC-00016181

From: Thomas Hays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Six word summary: The settlement is a bad idea.
    Details:
    I work for as a network administrator for a company that 
predominately uses Microsoft software for our business. We recently 
purchased Office XP and Windows XP Pro with some new Dell computers. 
The problem that I have with this is that resellers are calling me 
constantly (most recently to say the BSA is doing an audit in our 
area, and asking if I'm sure my company is legal?) and 
``advising'' us to discard our OEM license and buy the 
``real'' open license. Of course they want to sell us 
upgrade-assurance which is the first step in subscription based 
software.
    Want another problem area? Look at the security mess we have to 
deal with concerning Outlook. It may look nice and be intuitive, but 
is it secure? Even after what 5 or 6 years of development, it's 
still not secure. Yet Outlook is the predominant email software in 
business because it comes ``bundled'' with several 
versions of Office. I believe it could be successfully argued that 
Netscape/Mozilla, Eudora, or Pegasus mail are all more secure, yet 
how many people use them. How many people even know there are other 
email software packages besides Outlook.
    A final complaint, the push of passport. With Microsoft's 
terrific security record I'm really thrilled with the idea of all my 
logins and a considerable portion of my personal information being 
stored by them so I can access common financial packages like

[[Page 26210]]

Microsoft Money (the newest version nags you to set up a passport 
account) or Ebay and other web sites which are offering Passport 
logins.
    What would help the consumer the most would be competition. 
Competition would drive us towards more affordable and better 
written software.
    Thank you.
    Thomas Hays
    [email protected]



MTC-00016182

From: Greg Wold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    I wish to add my voice to the chorus of those disappointed by 
and opposed to the proposed settlement with Microsoft Corp. for 
their proven anti-competitive practices. I find the proposed 
settlement to be inadequate, and hope that it will be thrown out. 
The current proposal provides for no substantive punishment for the 
proven, illegal activities carried out by Microsoft; it provides no 
effective constraints on Microsoft's future practices; and it 
provides no effective means of enforcement for it's provisions.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory R. Wold
    96 Katie Dr.
    Langhorne, PA 19047



MTC-00016183

From: Bill Dugan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea.
    Bill Dugan



MTC-00016184

From: Eric Stechmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the situation is precisely this:
    Microsoft acted illegally. They knowingly and flagrantly 
violated US antitrust regulations. The company ``thumbed its 
nose'' at the laws of the United States. Justice demands that 
their punishment be swift and severe. Microsoft must be shown that 
such violations can not and will not be tolerated.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Stechmann
    These opinions are mine and are not necessarily those of my 
employer.



MTC-00016185

From: Timothy Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I wish to register my objection to the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the DOJ.
    As capitalists, we recognize how vital it is that there be 
vigorous competition in every marketplace. Consider the competition 
between Intel and AMD. I suspect that without AMD, Intel would be 
putting more energy into maintaining its already huge market share, 
rather than putting that energy into improving their products. The 
result of the competition has been that Intel and AMD have been 
fighting tooth-and-nail to compete based on the QUALITY of their 
products, and everybody wins. Microsoft has no such competitor. 
There is no one who directly competes with Microsoft in the same 
market, so Microsoft gets comfortable and lazy and takes action only 
to maintain their position by precluding any other company from 
entering their market. Consider the recent events involving 
LindowsOS. Microsoft's primary concern is that since LindowsOS can 
run Windows software, it might compete with them, so they will find 
any excuse they can to tie their would-be competitor up in court so 
they can't function.
    And that is the crux of the matter. Microsoft has been declared 
a monopoly, and they have been found to have acted 
anticompetitively. Desptite this, they continue to act as they 
always have.
    The objective of the DOJ and the Court should be to protect 
competition, because competition is what benefits consumers and the 
economy. I have read the Proposed Settlement, and I, like everyone 
else I know, have found it to be filled with loopholes. It does 
nothing to repair any of the past damage that Microsoft has caused, 
and it does very little to prevent them from acting inappropriately 
in the future. In fact, it has wording that implicitly protects 
Microsoft from revealing trade secrets to Open Source developers. 
The Open Source movement is the one of the few thing that has been 
able to survive and grow against Microsoft in recent years, mostly 
because there's no one specific that can be sued into oblivion. I 
was very sad the day I read that the break-up order had been taken 
off the table by the Bush administration.
    Honestly, I think the Proposed Settlement does more harm than 
good because it gives Microsoft license to continue their past 
behaviors with government sanction. The Settlement is not helpful to 
consumers and should be rejected.
    Thank you.
    Timothy Miller



MTC-00016186

From: Aaron Patterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations for using 
monopoly power to extend their influence into other markets. Leaving 
Microsoft intact with windows, office, internet explorer, and the 
ability to continue bundling, continue unfair pricing, and continue 
creating undocumented APIs in the name of security will not bring 
competition into these markets. Creating a settlement that relies on 
further protracted litigation to correct future transgressions will 
not provide just, expedient results.
    If a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, 
benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Patterson
    130 W Gilman Apt 1
    Madison WI 53703



MTC-00016187

From: Bill Dugan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    bdugan.



MTC-00016188

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern...
    I'm wondering when the law stopped being about doing right and 
achieving justice and instead turned to ``settling''. 
Especially settling with -Microsoft-, a known and repeat 
offender which has shown nothing but contempt (when it has cared at 
all) for the ongoing litigation against it. Since when do law-
breakers have to agree to their punishment?
    Microsoft corp is guilty of the premeditated bludgeoning 
Netscape corp to a bloody pulp (with a killer app). Or, from another 
point of view, the Mafia is guilty of ``anti-competitive 
behavior''. The remedy for this Microsoft situation and the 
ongoing situation (try uninstalling Windows Media Player or Windows 
Movie Maker from Windows XP-I certainly can't figure out how) 
shouldn't involve Microsoft agreeing to it [I've not seen them admit 
any guilt] or rely on Microsoft changing internal behavior to abide 
by it [see also ``consent decree''].
    But also consider:
    1) All current Microsoft sales contracts to OEMs are null and 
void. Microsoft must write a new, open contract that anybody can 
take advantage of to purchase any software that Microsoft makes 
avaialble in an OEM fashion. Volume discounts not allowed 
as-according to them-there are no barriers to entry in 
the software market, ergo minimal distribution costs in the OEM 
channel, therefore nothing to discount. (Dell will be charged the 
same amount for a Windows license as the corner parts shop down the 
road.)
    2) Prior to releasing a version of Windows, Microsoft must 
submit its entire source code to a government compliance committee. 
If

[[Page 26211]]

said committee cannot make the code compile in a way that makes it 
look the same as the ``gold'' Windows code, the Windows 
product cannot be released. Further, committee will be allowed to 
freely redistribute their findings about the current state of 
Windows interfaces (APIs) as a standard to allow other people to 
adopt the Windows standard. (Or is it ``embrace and 
extend'' the Windows standard? Anyway, the difference with this 
suggestion is that Microsoft isn't allowed to sell a new version of 
Windows until the APIs are in the public domain so compliance will 
be rather less of an issue.)
    3) Just as a side suggestion, the fees Microsoft charges for 
support can never be more expensive than what Microsoft charged for 
a specific application. For example, if Outlook Express (free, 
bundled with Windows, haven't figured out how to uninstall 
it-but the splash screen says Outlook Express, not Windows XP) 
is giving you problems, you can get support for it for free. Windows 
is giving you problems? Support costs are maxxed out at the OEM 
price of Windows. This would give Microsoft an incentive to deal 
quickly and directly with consumers in a manner that rapidly 
resolves the consumers'' problems-as opposed to telling 
them to ask their hardware vendor. (Really, what does Dell know 
about Outlook Express?)
    Anyway, the first two points would be the most important: 
Microsoft cannot do business as usual anymore because their usual 
business is -illegal-. Point 3 is just a remedy for my 
personal frustration with Microsoft products.
    The point is is that this is a real rememdy, not something that 
Microsoft can say ``no'' to because they don't feel like 
it, not something that they can look back on in a few years and say 
``see how nice we are?''
    Quite frankly, if wrongdoing is found in the Enron case, we're 
not going to fine Mr. Lay $50 and send him out to be a motivational 
speaker at high schools. (``Hi Kids! Creative accounting more 
or less worked for me, and it can work for you too! Oh, and stay of 
drugs-they're expensive.'' It just wouldn't happen.)
    So why should we consider giving such treatment to a company 
that won't even admit it's bad behavior?
    Sincerely,
    Jason Miller
    e-Business Application Developer
    Portland, Oregon



MTC-00016189

From: Bruce McCready
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgment to the United States 
v. Microsoft Corp. As a software engineer, and a computer 
enthusiast, I have followed the Microsoft antitrust trial closely, 
and have been aware of the impact of Microsoft Corporation's anti-
competitive practices for much longer. In my opinion, the Proposed 
Final Judgment does not go far enough to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing these anticompetitive practices. In particular, the 
Proposed Final Judgment too narrowly defines the ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'', and eliminates from definition U: 
``Windows Operating System Product'' several important 
Microsoft operating systems. In order to effectively limit 
Microsoft's ability to stifle competition, the definition of 
``API ``should probably be expanded to include many other 
API's that a conservative interpretation of the existing definition 
might exclude. I believe that, in addition, Microsoft's overly 
restrictive licensing that discriminates against Independent 
Software Vendors who develop solutions for open source operating 
systems, or ship open source software must be effectively remedied 
in any acceptable Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce McCready
    Software Engineer
    Advertising.Com
    410-244-1370 x13726
    We bring innovation to interactive communication.
    Advertising.com-Superior Technology. Superior Performance.



MTC-00016190

From: Troy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has 
long been a thorn in the side of independent achievement. While I 
use their products regularly, I find that I use them because no 
other company can produce an equivalent or better product without 
being pounded into the ground by MS or bought out. I would like to 
see their practices change, it would be better for us and better for 
them in the long run.
    Troy Daley



MTC-00016191

From: Randy Walton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:43am
Subject: Comments regarding the Microsoft Settlement
    To reviewers of public comments regarding the Microsoft 
Settlement, I understand that I have the ability to comment on the 
proposed settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft. I 
have been using computers daily since the mid-eighties, when my 
father brought home an early portable IBM computer. I hope to earn 
my livelihood by working in the computing industry. Consequently, 
this issue is centrally relevant to my life.
    It is widely believed by those familiar with the case that the 
proposed settlement is completely inadequate. It will do little to 
punish Microsoft for it's plainly illegal conduct in the past, and 
virtually nothing whatsoever to prevent future violations of 
antitrust law. As a consumer, it infuriates me to be forced to pay 
for increasingly expensive software that diminishes in quality with 
each release. I applauded the Clinton administration's investigation 
of Microsoft. Their case was an effort to protect consumers and 
promote economic growth by restoring fairness and competition to the 
computer industry.
    Now that the DOJ is under new management, it has essentially 
abandoned it's pursuit of Microsoft, suggesting that the DOJ no 
longer has any concern for either economic growth or the public 
good.
    The United States is a successful nation because its free 
markets encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-
quality, low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from 
monopolists who gain so much power that they can destroy the 
competitive nature of the markets in which they participate.
    I urge all parties involved to reconsider the proposed 
settlement. Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for 
it's destructive abuse of it's monopoly power. More importantly, 
American consumers need to be protected against future abuses.
    Thank you for your time,
    Randall Walton



MTC-00016196

From: The Rowlands
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is 
a very bad thing. Microsoft has been found guilty of criminal 
behavior, and seems quite unwilling to change its ways. I object to 
the leniency of the proposed settlement.
    Trase Rowland
    Ft. Pierce, FL



MTC-00016198

From: Bill Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a private citizen and a computer professional to 
object to the currently proposed settlement of United States v. 
Microsoft. I believe that the settlement both in its details and its 
overall makeup is insufficient to relieve the monopolistic behavior 
that Microsoft continues, to this very day, to evidence. A stronger, 
more complete and thorough settlement, and one that addresses the 
roots of the problem rather than its symptoms, is in my opinion 
essential. This settlement should be rejected.
    Bill.



MTC-00016199

From: M M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Judge;
    As a long-time banker to many software industry clients, I can 
personally attest to the pernicious power and influence of Microsoft 
in this, one of America's most important industries. No company in 
my lifetime has exerted such a strong and frequently negative 
influence over its industry as Microsoft has done over the past 10 
years. I will not be giving you my full name, as I fear the wrath of 
the folks up in Redmond. But I will ask you to look carefully at the 
facts in this case. They will speak for themselves.
    Thank you.
    E. J.
    San Francisco, CA

[[Page 26212]]



MTC-00016200

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This Proposed Final Judgement is a travesty of injustice. Have 
you learned nothing from the previous settlement? Look at 
Microsoft's behavior since all the verdicts. They have changed their 
attitude not a whit. They have no remorse, they still deny their 
guilt, they stall the legal process at every opportunity, they stll 
step on competitors, they still accumulate an incredible cash 
reserve (``What? A monopoly? Nonsense, we earn this incredible 
gross margin through innovation!''), they are, in short, as bad 
a monopoly as the country has ever seen. And this settlement might 
well have been written by Microsoft. It is full of weasel words and 
loopholes. Nothing is pinned down. There are far too many vaguely 
defined adjectives. This was written with the sole intent of 
providing grounds for any and all interpretations. Microsoft will 
argue and debate and stall and obfuscate just as they have always 
done.
    The oversight committee is a joke. They have no powers, and 
Microsoft gets to aoopoint one of their own choosing. Pardon me, can 
I go commit a major crime and appoint my own parole board? Better 
yet, let me write the terms of my own parole. And O By The Way, let 
this parole board have no power whatsoever. As far as actually 
serving any hard time, ha ha ha, fooled you!
    Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / 
[email protected]
    GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR 
license #4933
    I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've 
run out of room o



MTC-00016201

From: James Risner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you about the Microsoft settlement.
    I am James Risner from 1600 Woodspring Court, Lexington KY. I 
have owned an ISP since 1995 in Kentucky. The 1995 Consent Decree is 
nearly identical to the settlement. It is my belief that they will 
violate the settlement just as they did they decree. Microsoft 
destroyed Netscape because it was a threat to their OS system.
    Microsoft put code in that would post an error and fail to run 
Windows 3.1 when ran with a a DOS other than MSDOS or IBMDOS at the 
time. This prevented the use of Dr DOS at the time.
    Microsoft copied Stac compression for their own compressed 
filesystem code. Stac sued and won $120 million settlement, but by 
the time the money was delivered Stac no longer had a product since 
Microsoft produced a clean room version of the code.
    The settlement requires ``secret'' API to be published 
but defines it narrowly so that not all API would be required to be 
published. Many other narrow provisions allow Microsoft to place 
independent software vendors in the position of not being able to 
keep their product supported in newer Windows version since they do 
not get advance warning of significant operating system changes. The 
1995 consent decree prohibited anticompetitive license terms, but 
did so narrowly such that these type of terms continued in 
Microsoft's Internet products, media players, software development 
products, and enterprise purchasing license agreements. The same 
action considered bad and anticompetitive in one situation, should 
be consider bad in all instances.
    It is my belief that Microsoft has no intention of obeying this 
command and will continue to attempt to interpret loopholes they can 
use to continue their actions using their $40 billion in cash to 
defend against any action the government attempts to curtail their 
illegal behaviour.
    Microsoft has done more hard to the economy that healing. I wish 
I could say there was a viable alternative to their product that I 
use daily, but I would be lying. This is certainly not due to any 
effort of the part of their competitors.
    Risner
    (cos(Theta-r)-sin 
Theta)(r-4-2cos(2Theta+2.4)r-2+0.9)+(2.46428x10--208)r-1000 
<0



MTC-00016202

From: Jay Dun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:43am
Subject: Disapprove of MS Settlement
    Our group disapprove of MS Settlement the government.



MTC-00016203

From: Nat Budin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think Microsoft's proposed settlement is a very bad idea; it 
would only serve to increase Microsoft's monopoly at virtually no 
cost to them (since the proposed settlement's figured value includes 
retail license costs of Microsoft software, which in actuality costs 
them next to nothing). Please do not allow Microsoft to get away 
with this!
    Thanks for listening,
    Nat Budin
    [email protected]



MTC-00016204

From: Jay Laprade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs or Maam,
    I am a US citizen and I wanted to excersise my rights under the 
Tunney Act in reagrds to the Microsoft Trial. Here is my feelings, I 
believe that Microsoft was let of easily. While I believe that it is 
necessary to maintain the stability of a company within the bounds 
of the US. ie Keep the company reasonably happy and not drive it 
away. I think it is necessary to set specific standards and laws 
that help the average US citizen. Not the company. I believe that 
this ruling did the best thing for Microsoft. It was too leanent and 
needs to be more firm. Microsoft is slowly killing it only 
reasonable competitor. And it's competitor is free. In my humble 
opinion it is also killing off other competitors. Nullsoft was 
bought by AOL. Their product is free. Netscape is gone. All these 
products are continuing to disappear.
    Jay Laprade
    Information & Communications Analyst
    Paramount International Telecommunications
    (800)829-8694 X214
    [email protected]



MTC-00016210

From: Carlos Eberhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Hello,
    As a concerned citizen and professional software developer, I 
wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I do not feel 
the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) would prevent Microsoft from 
continuing anticompetitive practices, and I do not believe it would 
level the playing field for competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems. Specifically, although the PFJ forbids retaliation against 
OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who support or develop alternatives to Windows, 
it does not ensure that Microsoft could raise no artificial barriers 
against non-Windows operating systems which implement the APIs 
needed to run application programs written for Windows. Therefore it 
should not be adopted without considerable revision.
    Sincerely,
    Carlos Eberhardt
    5336 East Street
    White Bear Twp, MN 55110-2312



MTC-00016212

From: Dave Newcum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for its 
destructive abuse of its monopoly power. Similar to the settlement 
against AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated 
Monopoly, until its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, 
for example, assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). 
This must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation 
is lifted. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to 
bear increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation 
that would otherwise be stimulated through competition. It is my 
belief that a very strong set of strictures must be placed on 
convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to continue 
their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Sincerely,
    David Newcum
    Rockford, IL
    Software Engineer



MTC-00016213

From: Rick Sipin
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26213]]

Date: 1/23/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I'm writing to comment on my negative opinion of the Proposed 
Final Judgement to the Microsoft Anit-trust case. Specifically, the 
judgement seems to be completely oriented towards Microsoft's 
licensing practices with third party (OEM and the like) vendors, and 
does nothing to prevent Microsoft from completely circumventing the 
judgement by their licencing practices with the end users. 
Specifically current Microsoft volume licensing policies, require 
that once subscribed to their new licensing structure that no 
contracts may be entered into that allow an end user to install or 
use competing software from what Microsoft offers. Now I may not be 
taking the language straight from the horses mouth, but according to 
many sources, including CIO magazine (see attached link below), this 
is their current licensing practice. In my opinion, this is in 
response to the DOJ settlement, and appears to be done by Microsoft 
to continue their unfair and monopolistic practices. As a software 
developer, systems designer and integrator, my business will be 
under significant additional stress from this kind of monopolistic 
practices, if Microsoft is allowed to continue to put undue, and in 
my opinion, illegal pressure on it's end users to use no products 
which compete with their own. Clearly, in my mind, Microsoft wishes 
to work in an envvironment where the only choices are Microsoft, or 
nothing at all. I would like to see a settlement which specifically 
addresses this kind of anit-competitive practice, and which does 
something more tangible that what the current proposed settlement 
offers, to enforce fair competitive practices, and penalize 
Microsoft for failing to comply with these terms.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Rick Sipin-Owner
    Thinking Edge Design
    2575 S Lafayette St
    Denver, CO 80210
    http://www.thinkingedge.com
    [email protected]
    (303) 282-8427
    Link to CIO Magazine reference of 15 Jan 2002:
    http://www.cio.com/archive/011502/meter.html



MTC-00016214

From: Eric Busboom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Comments on Microsfot Settlement
    The PJF is disastrously weak, as many commentators have already 
noted over the last few months. As a programmer who has suffered 
with the poor quality operating systems that Microsoft has 
distributed for the last 20 years, I am disgusted that my government 
would allow Microsoft to continue to strangle the software industry. 
Many of the key restrictions in the PFJ relate to Microsoft 
middleware, but the definition of ``middleware'' is weak 
and the the restrictions are easy to avoid. Specifically,
    * Because a software unit will cease to be defined a middleware 
a year after it is incorporated into the Operating System, the PFJ 
encourages Microsoft to integrate more functions into the OS. I had 
hoped the PFJ would discourage this, not promote it.
    * Programmers need the APIs in the OS published more than the 
APIs to middleware. Without documented OS APIs and program document 
formats, Microsoft can continue to stifle development from ISVs.
    The PFJ was clearly constructed so that Microsoft could avoid 
any hindrance to its predatory business practices, and if it becomes 
final, it will only serve to maintain status quo.
    Eric Busboom.



MTC-00016215

From: Eric Butler Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Tunney Act comment:
    My comments concern the enforcement provisions of the Proposed 
Final Settlement. The provisions seem to assume that Microsoft will 
make a good faith effort to comply with the provisions of the PFS. 
This assumption is not justified. Microsoft has demonstrated 
contempt for the Court in all of its interactions with the Court; 
there is no reason to believe that it will comply more effectively 
with the PFS than it did with the 1994 consent decree.
    The enforcement provisions provided in IV, B of the Proposed 
Final Settlement are inadequate for the following reasons:
    1) The enforcement provisions rely on ongoing monitoring efforts 
by the states acting as a committee. (IV, B, 1); this system of 
governance will result in a reduction in the efficiency of the 
monitoring process as the states have already demonstrated that 
their interests are not identical by splitting in their acceptance 
of the Proposed Final Settlement.
    2) The enforcement provisions prevent the states from disclosing 
information revealed by Microsoft in the process of enforcement (IV, 
A, 2, b).
    3) Microsoft is given a role in the selection of the Technical 
Committee (IV, B, 3). Given Microsoft's previous history of 
disregard for consent decrees and other legal sanctions, the 
likelihood that Microsoft will use its appointment power to undercut 
the effectiveness of the TC is high.
    4) Given the powers of the TC (IV, B, 8), it will require an 
extremely large staff. The expense of monitoring Microsoft's 
compliance, especially given the company's past history of grudging 
and incomplete compliance with the 1994 consent decree, will be very 
substantial.
    5) Microsoft is given the power of appointing the Compliance 
Officer (IV, C, 1). Given the company's past history of grudging and 
incomplete compliance with the 1994 consent decree, it is unlikely 
that the company will appoint a CO who will attempt to comply with 
the present settlement in good faith.
    6) The powers to the TC and CO do not extend beyond acceptance 
of complaints from 3rd parties which can be forwarded to Microsoft 
to ``accept or reject'' (IV, D, 3, c) or proposing cures 
(IV, D, 4, c). Without the authority to mandate cures, the 
enforcement authority will be ineffective, given Microsoft's history 
of evading consent decrees.
    Microsoft's crimes demand a structural remedy, not the 
establishment of a powerless ``compliance'' authority.
    Sincerely,
    Eric
    Eric Evans



MTC-00016216

From: James Bearden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft in it's 
current form will do little to hinder Microsoft's affirmed monopoly 
practices. The problems are too numerous to mention here, but the 
three person ``oversight'' committee gag decree is 
especially henious.
    James



MTC-00016217

From: Chris Parrinello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing with regards to the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I believe that the 
settlement in light of the fact that the courts have decided and 
upheld the fact that Microsoft has violated the law, is not a 
punishment at all nor it is strong enough to modify the illegal and 
anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft. The proposed final judgement 
(PFJ) has the following flaws:

The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems

    * Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.

The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions

    * The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    * The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    * The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    * The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''. The PFJ fails to 
require advance notice of technical requirements,

[[Page 26214]]

allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by 
changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and not 
informing ISVs.
    * The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    * The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation- 
but prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
    * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently used 
by Microsoft

    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    * Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities Historically 
Used by Microsoft

    * Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs

    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    With these flaws taken in part or in whole, the PFJ does not 
serve justice nor does it address the damage that has been done in 
the high-tech industry with respect to the innovation that Microsoft 
has PREVENTED because of its anti-competitive behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Parrinello
    Software Engineer
    214 Travis Court
    Apt. 305
    Schaumburg, IL 60195
    (847) 490-1935



MTC-00016218

From: Carmine F. Greco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I disagree with the proposed Microsoft judgement. I don't think 
this judgement will prevent Microsoft from monopolistic practices. 
Just look at the current MSN/AOL competition and how Microsoft is 
forcing MSN on people.
    Carmine
    Carmine F. Greco



MTC-00016219

From: Aaron McBride
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft Anti-trust settlement is a bad idea. While 
it may help to deter them from further violations, it doesn't do 
enough to restore competition to the market. I suggest either 
breaking them up into at least 4 companies (OS Core, OS GUI, 
Applications, and hardware), or force them to expose all OS, and 
application APIs-including Microsoft Office file formats. They 
should also not be allowed to break the cross-platform nature of the 
Internet by implementing platform specific ``plug-ins'' 
(ActiveX components) in their web browser.
    -Aaron McBride



MTC-00016220

From: Shawn Stricklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am submitting this comment, as permitted by the Tunney act, 
regarding the remedies proposed as the outcome of the Microsoft 
Antitrust trial. As a scientist in training, I must work with non-
Microsoft operating systems and products every day. The proprietary 
and ever-changing FILE FORMATS used by Microsoft, however, make even 
the exchange of simple text files between Microsoft and non-
Microsoft programs incredibly cumbersome. Any proposed Microsoft 
remedy which does not include the absolute requirement for openly 
published data file formats falls far short of the required public 
benefit.
    On the day-to-day office work level, it is this intentional file 
format incompatibility which forces purchase of Microsoft products, 
and further, it is the artificial incompatibility BETWEEN VERSIONS 
OF THE SAME MICROSOFT PRODUCT which forces purchase of ever newer 
Microsoft products, EVEN THOUGH THEY FREQUENTLY ADD NO RELEVANT 
FUNCTIONALITY OVER THE OLDER PRODUCTS.
    Publicly available Microsoft file format specifications would 
allow third-party developers to produce file conversion tools which 
completely obviate this unfair Microsoft practice.
    Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this judgment.
    Shawn Stricklin
    Shawn L. Stricklin [email protected]
    Washington University, Dept. of Genetics Phone: 314.747.8207
    4566 Scott Ave, Box 8232 St. Louis, MO 63110 Fax: 314.362.7855



MTC-00016221

From: Lund, Kenneth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
    /< Ken Lund



MTC-00016222

From: Chris Winberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my objection to the proposed settlement 
in the United States vs. Microsoft case.



MTC-00016223

From: Lucas MacBride
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ's ``NEVERMIND'' WAFFLE

    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is completely 
unconscionable. After having won the case on nearly all accounts, 
the DoJ has handed out a resounding ``nevermind''. What a 
complete waste of public funds. Highly suspicious, as well, 
considering the amount of influence big business in general has had 
over the past few elections. Something here just doesn't add up.

MICROSOFT FRAGMENTS AND DERAILS THE WEB

    As a freelance Web site designer I suffer daily from the lack of 
choice in operating systems and Web browsers available today. 
Microsoft continues to short-circuit and preempt efforts by the 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to standardize Web technologies that 
would make interoperability between different operating systems and 
Web browsers very simple. Instead, I need to code my pages 
(scripting and Document Object Model, specifically) at least three 
redundant ways so they work in MSIE and Netscape 4, as well as the 
new standards-compliant browsers such as Netscape 6 and Opera. 
Netscape has done the right thing; Microsoft needs to be forced to 
adhere to Web standards, rather than continue to slyly compel Web 
designers to continuing to use proprietary coding which only serves 
to maintain Microsoft's monopoly.

OPERATING SYSTEM CHOICE

    The settlement does nothing to protect other operating systems 
which might

[[Page 26215]]

compete with Microsoft, specifically Open Source OSes like Linux.

SECURITY

    The continued lack of security in Microsoft products creates 
horrendous situations regarding national security, business security 
and personal data security. If there were diverse OSes and Web 
browsers, virii could not take out such large portions of the 
world's tech infrastructure in one fell swoop.
    I hope the DoJ will reconsider this joke of a settlement and 
rein in Microsoft. Reneging on the judgment sends an unsavory 
message to other tech businesses-that it's okay to misbehave, 
the DoJ doesn't care.
    Lucas MacBride
    [email protected]



MTC-00016224

From: Glenn Patterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software developer I believe this settlement is a bad idea. 
It has been shown time and again that MS will do anything to keep 
it's monopoly. It is obvious to anyone involved in software/hardware 
that MS uses it's monopoly to drive companies to buy their products 
and then locks them. Once a company begins developing with MS 
products they are forced to continue because of the high cost they 
would face to switch to other solutions. Further, MS will then 
upgrade it's products, forcing anyone using them to buy the next 
release or their lose support for the version they are on.
    There are many issues with regard to this settlement and I refer 
you to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html for more information. 
If this settlement is allowed to go through it will have been a 
waste of time, money, and great energy on the part of the government 
and all involved.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Patterson



MTC-00016225

From: Jim Leonard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to OPPOSE the current proposed settlement. In my 
opinion it appears to do little to realistically open up the market 
to competition nor does it appear to have any credible enforcement 
capabilities.
    Victor Leonard
    6708 Concourse Dr
    Columbus OH 43229



MTC-00016226

From: Troy Daley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has 
long been a thorn in the side of independent achievement.
    While I use their products regularly, I find that I use them 
because no other company can produce an equivalent or better product 
without being pounded into the ground by MS or bought out. I would 
like to see their practices change, it would be better for us and 
better for them in the long run.
    Troy Daley



MTC-00016227

From: Jason Spangler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea, and is not strict 
enough to curb Microsoft's monopolistic behavior.



MTC-00016228

From: Scott Pepple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a consumer of Microsoft products for over 15 years and a 
citizen of the United States, I've got a few opinions I would like 
to share with the Department of Justice, The Federal Court and the 
general public.
    The progression of the Microsoft Anti-Trust trial over the past 
couple of years has filled me with hope that we were after all a 
nation ruled by laws rather than by money. The decision of the 
Department of Justice to conclude the proceedings with a hastily 
negotiated settlement after they had all but won the day has been a 
sad realization for me that we still have a long way to go.
    Any person with sense can see consumer choice is limited when 
the same company that produces the operating system used by 80% of 
the desktops in the country also produces software to run on that 
operating system. Name any competitive Word Processing Program on 
the market. There are none. Is that because Word Processing Programs 
are so tough to write? Is that because Microsoft's Word Processing 
Program is so good? It's because Microsoft is constantly making 
efforts towards it's prime goal-the creation of a unified, 
monolithic Desktop under their control. Whether by coding practices, 
marketing practices or by manipulation of the legal system, they 
have been more successful than not in achieving their prime 
directive.
    Regardless of the lack of acceptability of the current 
situation, it appears that the current administration is less than 
ardent in pursuing justice at the risk of their campaign and 
whatever other contributions they can expect from Microsoft.
    Given that situation, the current structure of the initial 
agreement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft should be 
modified to expand the portions on interoperability. A strong 
emphasis in the resolution on this one area will yield the greatest 
longterm benefits to the industry and the consumer. If Microsoft's 
standards and interfaces were well known natural competition will 
follow. To state that such information is a security risk is merely 
covering the weaknesses of an insecure platform.
    Second, any penalties that should be levied on Microsoft need to 
be recompensed in Cash! Anything but goods and services! The very 
nature of Microsoft's business model seeks deployment of the maximum 
amount of software to obtain dependency among the greatest number of 
people. By exacting payment in goods and services you will simply be 
helping them to achieve their prime objective. Simply put, your 
settlement should try harder to make the bad guys work with the rest 
of us in a fair manner and your penalties should not let the bad 
guys do more bad.
    Scott Pepple



MTC-00016229

From: Jack Park
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    May I please offer a comment, one that I think addresses the 
primary issue in relation to Microsoft's ability to remain a 
monopoly. If is this: If competitors have the ability to create and 
offer for sale truly compatible products, I believe that the 
capability to maintain a monopoly position in the market will be 
greatly reduced.
    Of greatest importance is the Microsoft Office product. I 
strongly believe that the Microsoft Office file format specification 
should be completely documented and those documents kept completely 
in synch with any version changes Microsoft makes. Those documents 
must be made public domain, usable without any restrictions. This, I 
believe, will make it much easier for competitors to guarantee file 
compatibility with Microsoft products.
    I am certain that there are other issues at stake here. I have 
chosen to focus on the particular issue I think most important.
    Sincerely
    Jack Park
    Independent Software Developer
    Brownsville, California



MTC-00016230

From: Warren Ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is bad. We need a better solution, not 
an advertisement package for the Microsoft robber barrons. Open 
source operating systems need to be promoted. Considering the 
dependency America has on Microsoft products, the poor reliability 
of Microsoft products, and the unfair trade practices of Microsoft, 
it is time for a major innitiative to promote alternatives like 
linux.
    Warren Ferguson
    213 Marilyn Circle
    Cary NC 27513
    Title: Senior Software Engineer
    Affiliation: Master of Computer Science, Wright State
    University, Ohio



MTC-00016231

From: David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing in regards to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case.
    In my considered opinion as a Computing Systems Manager I must 
disagree with the proposed settlement as it is currently written. 
While I agree with the decision that Microsoft is in violation of 
anti-trust laws, I feel that the current proposed settlement

[[Page 26216]]

needs additional work and review before it will effectively curtail 
these monopolistic practices. In broad strokes, my primary 
objections are as follows.
    1. The wording of restrictions need further examination for 
loopholes and easy methods of circumvention. I suggest that the 
attorney's involved seek additional techinical/computing advisement 
in understanding the details and ramifications of these issues. 
Example: The Definition of Microsoft Middleware is overly exclusive 
and appears to be avoidable by changing version numbering or 
distribution methods.
    2. API and Protocol sharing are too limited to insure that other 
developers and operating systems can compete with MS products. The 
limits placed on what must be shared/revealed does not address the 
issue of ``porting'' software designed to run on the 
Windows line of MS operating systems to other OS's or support for 
software designed to run Windows based applications on systems 
running a non-Microsoft Operating system.
    Example-This would not reduce the application barrier to 
entry for such software as the WINE project that endeavors to allow 
the use of software written for Windows on a computer running the 
Linux OS.
    3. Enforcement of the decision and the watchdogging of MS's 
compliance needs further review and strengthening. The 
specifications for who can serve in this role need greater 
definition and the position needs more ability to enforce the 
settlement and curtail further monopolistic practices.
    4. The settlement does not address proprietary digital document 
formats. This is a very specific issue but very important. One of 
the greatest barriers to competition with MS Software is the 
proprietary nature of documents created using the MS Office Suite 
software. The MS Word document format has become the de facto 
standard in business. Due to the proprietary nature of its encoding 
no other developer of word processor software can gain significant 
entry into the market due to the inaccessibility of this format. In 
practice a business MUST use MS Office to do business with other 
companies. This also has the effect of effectively reducing the 
choice of operating systems to be used by businesses to those OS's 
that run Microsoft Office, thus reducing competition in the OS 
market as well.
    There are many other issues that seem to make the current 
settlement less than effective. Please consider researching some of 
the excellent commentaries and essay's available by other concerned 
parties as they far exceed my modest research.
    To restate, I can not advice acceptance of the current proposal 
and strongly suggest continued revision and strengthening of the 
measures taken to rectify the damage already done by Microsoft's 
anti-competitve practices and prevent their use in the future. 
Please feel free to contact me if I may be of help in any way.
    Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    David Ehle
    Computing Systems Manager
    CAPP CSRRI
    Illinois Institute of Technology
    Chicago IL 60616
    312-567-3751
    [email protected]



MTC-00016232

From: Nothingface
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my concern that the Proposed Final 
Judgement is not adequate to solve the problems it attempts to 
address. I think in many cases, the Proposed Final Judgement is 
structured is such a way as to encourage and support Microsoft 
continuing business practices that are harmful to the economy and 
society.
    I agree with Dan Kegel's analysis and proposed solutions; his 
comments can be found here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    // Darius Rad, Electrical Engineer, Reading, MA



MTC-00016233

From: wayne barker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This email is being written to express my deep disappointment 
with the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case.
    I am a systems administrator at a design firm. As a computer 
professional, I have used Microsoft products for years-I am 
typing this email on one now. Over the 10+ years that I have used 
computers professionally, I have often been amazed at the unfair and 
inhibiting practices that Microsoft engages in. Their reputation as 
the ``Evil Empire'' is not a title lightly given nor is it 
undeserved. There have been an inconceivable number of times that I 
have had to patch a system/server/application due to shoddy 
programming by Microsoft, or worse yet to try to work around an 
intentional disabling of a feature that made a competitors product 
unusable.
    Microsoft is certainly capable of producing a quality 
product-I use several, in fact the majority of the computers I 
personally own run legally purchased copies of Microsoft operating 
systems and applications. However, I strongly support a the use of 
penalty, forced restructuring, and individual user remuneration, in 
order to convince Microsoft, in a definitive way, that they will no 
longer be allowed to manipulate and (more often than not) impede 
technological and social advancement in this country solely in order 
to maximize their profits.
    There is an attitude, from Bill Gates down, that we work for 
them, that they will give us what they want to give us, and damn 
America if they don1t like it. As has been suggested in a recent 
initiative to expand broadband access throughout this country as a 
means to enhance economic rejuvenation, the technological health and 
robustness of this country IS a national security interest. I do not 
believe for one second that Microsoft would fail to take advantage 
of any opportunity to further their market dominance, at the expense 
of ANY other concern, including and specifically those that threaten 
the reliability and independence of the computers users of this 
world. Indeed, the cynical nature of their proposed settlement, 
given that it would seriously degrade one of their few competitors 
small niche markets (Apple in education, where Apple is a much 
better suited product) is just one example of a DAILY litany of 
abuse, neglect, and misinformation.
    Our society, more than almost any other on this planet, has 
embraced the Technological and Computer revolutions. Our future is 
CLEARY tied to these areas, as our dominance in other resources and 
arenas wanes in an ever-more free-market world.
    Given this, we as a country simply cannot afford a behemoth of 
this stature and hubris to define and manipulate our progress. 
Standard Oil was a ubiquitous force which controlled vast stretches 
of our countries energy supplies, but was dethroned in a move that 
strengthened our nations health and enhanced progress. AT&T WAS 
the ``phone company'', but their breakup, in allowing and 
encouraging competition and innovation in the communications 
infrastructure, was a significant force in encouraging our current 
technological revolution.
    It is now the time to restructure, penalize, and otherwise 
mollify Microsoft's ambitions, so that the health, wealth, and 
opportunity of our future is that much more realizable. We have 
enough threats and issues to deal with outside of this country, 
please deal effectively with this internal one, and place us on a 
firmer more secure footing for the trials that lie ahead.
    And thank you very much for allowing a member of the public to 
express their concerns over this issue-I am honored.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Barker
    Systems Administrator
    Savage Design Group, Inc.
    wayne barker-systems admin-savage design group, inc.
    4203 yoakum-houston, tx 
77006-713-522-1555
    [email protected]



MTC-00016234

From: Michael McCafferty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the proposed settlement in the case of US 
vs. Microsoft.
    While I believe that there are several shortcomings of the 
proposed settlement, I feel the greatest oversight is the weak 
provisions for enforcement of future conduct. The settlement as 
written provides many loopholes, and Microsoft's management have 
demonstrated their willingness to exploit any such loopholes in 
pursuing the letter of the law, at the expense of the spirit. Any 
company whose leadership would introduce false evidence into court, 
get caught, and replace it with other false evidence, cannot be 
counted on to abide by laws or codes of conduct which permit any 
ambiguity.
    The current proposed settlement is tantamount to the DOJ walking 
away from a case that they've already won. Microsoft

[[Page 26217]]

gained its current monopoly status illegally, and must be forced to 
behave like a monopolist. This proposed settlement will not 
significantly influence the behavior of Microsoft's executives. A 
new remedy should be sought.
    Sincerely,
    Michael McCafferty
    2860 California St #10
    San Francisco, CA 94115



MTC-00016235

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support Microsoft on the case of AOL Vs. MS. I am not an 
Microsoft employee, but after seeing the way AOL operates, I support 
Microsoft. I also develop my own web browser, 404Browser, 
404Browser.com. One of the arguements that I heard that AOL used 
against Microsoft is that they underpriced their web browser (free). 
On the internet it is a joke if someone charged money for there web 
browser. AOL is even a bigger monopoly that Microsoft is. AOL's 
software will not even allow you to run alternitive internet 
applications outside their program.
    Steven Hicks
    404Browser Support



MTC-00016236

From: Antonio J. Alvaradorivera, III(059) A+, B. Sc., CCNA, RHCE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement does nothing to prevent MS from abusing its 
power in the future with future product releases. Somehow this needs 
to be addressed, monitored, and PREVENTED (not just caught). MS has 
held the computer industry back in all areas that it is not ready to 
compete, and that needs to stop.
    Antonio Jose Alvaradorivera, III
    A+, B.Sc., CCNA, RHCE
    RackSpace Managed Hosting
    Let us look out not only to our own interests, but also to the 
interests of others. This is not Rackspace's official opinion, but 
rather an opinion of the author.



MTC-00016237

From: Dylan Tack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have read, and am opposed to, the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust trial. Please consider a vote against it.
    In particular, I am opposed to the overly narrow definition of 
``API'' in the proposed final judgment. Microsoft should 
be required to document ALL Windows interfaces, so that competing 
vendors (such as Codeweavers, makers of WINE) can compete fairly in 
the market.
    Also, the proposal does little to redress Microsoft's past 
actions, and only places (inadequate) restraints on future behavior. 
Heavy fines should be assessed, with the proceeds used to support 
Open Source development of alternatives to Microsoft products.
    Sincerely,
    Dylan Tack
    Dylan Tack
    The Coordinated Laboratory for Computational Genomics and 
Parallel Processing Laboratory
    Dept of Electrical and Computer Engr.
    University of Iowa
    Iowa City, IA 52242 (USA)
    email: [email protected]
    URL http://genome.uiowa.edu



MTC-00016238

From: Lucas Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Marshall
    2603 Circle Drive
    Santa Clara, UT 84765



MTC-00016239

From: Mike Long
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:48am
Subject: My opposition to some elements of the Microsoft/Sun 
settlement
    I am a software developer with 19 years of experience and I am 
really glad to be free from having to use the Window's operating 
system. I am opposed to the jusdgements here which would prohibit me 
from running licensed Windows software on another operating system 
such as Linux.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Long
    Senior Software Developer
    Net Decisions



MTC-00016240

From: Zachary D. Noffsinger Erbaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern,
    I am a professional in Information Technology, and am writing to 
you as part of the Tunney Act comment process about the proposed 
settlement of the antitrust case against Microsoft.
    I am severely concerned about the proposed settlement. One of 
the most striking problems is the lack of any provision for 
disclosure of Microsoft protocols to not-for-profit organizations 
(as determined by Microsoft-cf. Section III(J)(2), Section 
III(D).) This would allow Microsoft to deny access to the most 
important competitors to Windows, including Linux (operating 
system), Apache (web server), and SAMBA (network server.) These 
systems provide consumers with options that are less expensive (both 
in terms of purchase price and Total Cost of Ownership) and more 
secure than the software Microsoft produces.
    The current settlement would allow Microsoft to effectively 
destroy some or all of the above systems by denying them access to 
Windows standards, simply because they are not 
``businesses'' in the traditional sense. It is ironic that 
such organizations are not being recognized by the U.S. government 
in this settlement, since they are more democratic and egalitarian 
than their for-profit counterparts. Furthermore, free and 
``Open Source'' (www.opensource.org) software has been 
repeatedly shown to be more secure than Microsoft's (often 
flagrantly) insecure products, and provide the impetus for increased 
security and reliability, which are important considerations in the 
world in which we now find ourselves.
    I urge you to not let the proposed settlement stand. Seek 
further technical counsel on the implications of any proposed 
settlement. With appropriate advice from within the industry, the 
settlement can be written in such a way that the options of computer 
users, the viability of non-profit innovators, and the security of 
computer networks in this country are protected.
    Sincerely,
    Zachary D. Noffsinger Erbaugh,
    Computing Support Specialist, Bethany Theological Seminary and 
Earlham School of Religion

    615 National Road West, Richmond, Indiana 47374, (765) 
983-1262 (Office), (800) BTS-8822, FAX (765) 
983-1840

    228 College Ave., Richmond, IN 47374, (765) 983-1423, 
(800) 432-1377, FAX (765) 983-1866

    mailto:[email protected], http://
www.bethanyseminary.edu/, http://esr.earlham.edu/.



MTC-00016241

From: Jason Jobe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001

[[Page 26218]]

    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html).
    I have signed the aforementioned petition but I wanted to 
reinforce my concern about how Microsoft has negatively impacted the 
software industry and strongly urge you to reject the current 
settlement offer.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Jobe
    President
    Datalore, Inc.
    Purcellville, VA 20132



MTC-00016242

From: Park, Christopher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. After 
reviewing some of the proposed solultion to the Microsoft anti-trust 
settlement, I feel it leaves much to be desired.
    I am an independant software programmer, and I feel stifled by 
the anti-competitive practices Microsoft has engaged in for many 
years. Many of my feelings on this subject can be summed up in Dan 
Kegel's Open letter to the department of Justice (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html)
    Thank You,
    Christopher Park



MTC-00016243

From: Cathal Stockdale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00016244

From: Sherri McConaghy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Sherri McConaghy



MTC-00016245

From: Chris Shenefiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit 
the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes 
against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is 
able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot 
commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their 
illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their 
abuses and not for the American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Shenefiel



MTC-00016246

From: david boswell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:49am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i am writing to express my feelings about the proposed remedies 
for the microsoft settlement before the public comment period closes 
in a few days. it is my opinion that it has been proven that 
microsoft is a monopoly and that it has used predatory practices in 
the past to further and extend that monopoly.
    my concern is that no adequate remedy will be chosen to address 
this situation. although i don't have any specific solutions to 
propose, i believe that many people have come up with many good 
ideas that would be effective. for instance, i agree with the 
sentiment of a recently published article in salon.com: http://
www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/index.html
    thank you for taking the time to read and consider this message.
    david



MTC-00016247

From: Jim Rankin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consulting engineer at Apple Computer, concerned about 
how Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior could hinder my company's 
ability to reach customers with the creative and innovative products 
for which Apple is known. I also speak as one who wants a future 
where technology innovation cannot be held back by a single 
corporation's anticompetitive behavior. This message does not 
necessarily reflect Apple's views.
    I am concerned that the proposed final judgment in the Microsoft 
antitrust proceeding does not accomplish what it claims to 
accomplish. The language is drafted loosely enough to allow 
Microsoft to avoid following the intent of the judgment in many 
points. Specifically, see the issues raised at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html.
    The stated intent of the proposed final judgment is an 
appropriate response to Microsoft's crimes. But if this intent 
cannot be enforced and allows Microsoft alternative ways to engage 
in anticompetitive behavior, it is worthless. Please revise the 
proposed final judgment to truly prohibit and appropriately punish 
any future anticompetitive acts by Microsoft.
    Mistakes made now may never be undone. The proposed final 
judgment seems to require bringing entirely new proceedings to 
address any future anticompetitive actions by Microsoft. There may 
never again be the political will or opportunity to correct flaws in 
this proposed final judgment later if they are not corrected now.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Rankin
    1159 Ovington Avenue #2
    Brooklyn, NY 11219
    718 232-2763



MTC-00016248

From: elijah wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am upset with the way that the PFJ fails to punish Microsoft 
for its historical pattern of illegal action and monopoly driven 
dominance of the computing industry.
    In particular, the Proposed Final Judgment seems to do very 
little to actually ``punish'' Microsoft. The entire 
agreement is vague, punishment is easily evaded, and the 
``punishment'' does very little to strike at the heart of 
their core business (which, unfortunately, seems to be the 
maintenance of their monopoly).
    Those with more than five years of experience in the industry 
are fully conversant with MS's poor behavior and tendency to slide 
toward proprietary lock-in; I, as well as others, would be happy to 
comment upon their past indiscretions if need be.
    Thanks so much for your time.
    Elijah Wright



MTC-00016249

From: Mike Savage
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the currently proposed settlement regarding the 
Microsoft Antitrust case is a

[[Page 26219]]

disservice to every American citizen, even those who are a part of 
Microsoft Corporation. I would urge the DOJ to push for stiffer 
penalties.
    Thank you,
    J. Michael Savage
    Database/Systems Administrator
    datastream.net portal development team
    
    (800) 955-6775 x7646



MTC-00016250

From: Joe Bowers
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my objections to the Proposed Final 
Judgement of the United States vs. Microsoft.
    As a professional software developer with experience working in 
Microsoft Windows and non-Windows environments, it is my opinion 
that by adopting very narrow definitions of ``API'', 
``Microsoft Middleware'', ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'', and ``Windows Operating System Product'', 
the proposed settlement offers ample opportunity for the Microsoft 
corporation to continue, and continue to profit from, 
anticompetitive conduct at the expense of software developers like 
myself, the distributors of computer hardware, and ultimately end 
users. Microsoft has illustrated great ingenuity and a true flair 
for ``innovation'' when it comes to discovering and 
perpetrating new damaging and illegal practices by which it can 
leverage its monopoly in one market into a monopoly in another 
market. Only by adopting much broader definitions that can include 
presently unforseen technologies, development patterns, and release 
strategies, can we as a nation prevent Microsoft from continually 
throwing stumbling blocks in the way of competitive commerce and the 
advance of the state of the art of computing.
    In addition, the amount of information the proposed settlement 
requires Microsoft to reveal and the required timeframes for 
revealing that information are respectively too little and too late. 
The various practices explicitly allowed by the settlement including 
limitations on the use of published APIs, the withholding of patent 
information by Microsoft, the ability for Microsoft to legally 
discriminate against OEMs not in the ``top twenty'' for 
distributing non-Microsoft products, and continued tolerance of 
limitations on the development of publicly available software in 
Microsofts licensing all contribute to my belief that the proposed 
judgement will do nothing but block further legal recourse with 
respect to Microsoft's illegal and damaging practices.
    Please, consider the state of the art and the state of the 
business of software and software development before committing to 
such and ineffective settlement with a criminal organization.
    Thank You,
    Joseph Bowers
    600 A North Greensboro Street
    Carrboro, NC 27510



MTC-00016251

From: Cal Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    To whom it may concern:
    I have read about the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-
Trust case and am disappointed in it. The settlement, as currently 
proposed will do nothing to curb the anti-competitive behavior. 
Please consider this a vote against the current settlement and I am 
asking that you seek a new settlement that is more closely aligned 
with the crimes they have been convicted of.
    Thank you,
    Cal Evans
    P.O. Box 1281
    Nashville, TN 37011
    [email protected]
    Cal Evans
    Senior Internet Dreamer
    http://www.calevans.com



MTC-00016252

From: Sioux Bellinder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make the right choice.
    Re: the Tunney Act, my comment
    The Proposed Microsoft Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sioux Bellinder
    Hasten Computer Solutions
    3204 Hillside Dr
    Wonder Lake, IL 60097
    815-653-0902
    fax 815-653-8841



MTC-00016253

From: James Bayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am 25 year old software developer. I feel that the outcome of 
the proposed Microsoft Settlement will directly impact my career for 
many years to come, and therefore I have a responsibility to voice 
my concerns about the settlement.
    I do not like the terms of the settlement. I do not think that 
as they are written, that the terms will preclude Microsoft from 
behaving in a monopolistic manner or benefit the end consumer. The 
most glaring problems I see with the settlement are in the terms 
that are designed to help remove the barriers to entry in the 
marketplace by providing additional information about the way 
Windows works. A more stringent standard than is being proposed by 
the final judgment will be necessary to meet the goal of having ISV 
successfully utilize the Windows APIs. Microsoft should be required 
to update documentation to ISVs whenever the API requirements 
change. Currently, the final judgment says that Microsoft has to 
notify ISVs seven months in advance of a new release, but not keep 
them up to date about changes. Additionally, many APIs under the 
current finally judgment will remain undocumented because of the 
narrow Microsoft Middleware Product'' and ``API'' 
definitions.
    By making the APIs more accessible to ISVs, consumers will 
benefit with more choice of platforms which to run their software 
and more software to choose from. I sincerely hope that the problems 
with the current final judgment, specifically the Windows API 
portions are addressed.
    Thank you,
    James Bayer
    [email protected]
    844 W. Grace St.
    Apt. G
    Chicago, IL 60613
    773-755-8129



MTC-00016254

From: Jeff Dutkofski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to voice my concerns with the proposed settlement 
agreement in the Microsoft case.
    It appears that efforts have been made in Sections III.F. and 
III.G. of the PFJ to prohibit certain exclusionary licensing 
practices by Microsoft towards ISVs.
    These Sections are as not strong as they could be. In its 
present wording, Microsoft's End User License Agreement (EULA) uses 
restrictive terms that stops Open Source/GPL/Artistic License/SCSL 
derived software and applications from running on Windows. These 
licensing terms also prohibit Windows applications from running on 
competing operating systems. In the interest of fairness and an open 
market, Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ should be worded to 
allow ``open source'' applications to run on Windows, and 
allow Windows applications to run on competing operating systems. 
Open up the market and allow the end users more choices and more 
options.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Jeffrey J. Dutkofski



MTC-00016255

From: Joel Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: United States Department of Justice
From: Joel Martin
    I would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in the 
United States vs. Microsoft according to the terms of the Tunney 
Act.

INTRODUCTION:

    The Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) does almost nothing to limit 
Microsoft's illegal practices. In fact, many aspects of the PFJ 
encourage Microsoft to continue in their long history of limiting 
competition and harming the public good. The problems with the PFJ 
are so numerous that the entire PFJ should be scrapped and re-
written. In this document I will enumerate a subset of the many 
problems with the PFJ.

DEFINITIONS (PFJ section IV):

    API-API is so narrowly defined that Microsoft will simply 
change their naming

[[Page 26220]]

scheme to evade the remedies. API should be defined in the industry 
accepted manner to include all interfaces to all software products 
that Microsoft distributes.
    Microsoft Middleware Product-at the very least this list 
should include all of Microsoft's .NET family of products. A more 
reasonable change would be to actually define this so that new 
middleware products that Microsoft introduces are covered by this 
definition.
    Windows Operating System Product-again, the definition in 
the PFJ is a list of specific products. First of all, this term 
should be changed to ``Operating System Product''. A 
proper definition should be developed that covers all Windows XP 
versions, all Windows 2000 versions, all portable versions of 
Windows such as Windows XP tablet PC and the X-Box Operating System. 
All of these products need to be covered so that the judgement 
protects and corrects now and into the future.

ACTIONS TOWARDS THIRD PARTIES:

    The remedies outlined in the PFJ that apply to Microsoft's 
actions towards other parties need to be expanded and strengthened. 
In the current form it is impotent and narrow. Microsoft should not 
be able to punish any OEM or third party for the way they customize 
their systems with or without Microsoft software. Microsoft should 
be required to publish their prices for all OEM's and third parties, 
NOT just the largest 20 OEMs as stated in the PFJ. Also, Microsoft 
should be prohibited from retaliating against OEMs and third parties 
in other ways than just price gouging. For example, Microsoft should 
not be allowed to give discounts on other products to OEMs that do 
not sell pre-configured systems with alternate operating systems. 
One particularly glaring problem in the PFJ is Section III.A.2 which 
allows Microsoft to retaliate against an OEM that sells systems with 
a competing Operating System but no Microsoft Operating System. This 
hole in the PFJ is subtle but pernicious and is reason enough to 
nullify this version of the PFJ.

EULAS (End User Licenses):

    Microsoft has a history of using EULAs to create fear and 
uncertainty for competitors. These agreements regularly prohibit 
interoberability, exclude Open Source products, and the prohibit the 
development of certain types of competing and interoperating 
products. The PFJ does not address this issue of Microsoft's anti-
competitive EULAs.

PROPOSED CHANGES:

    The list of problems goes on and on but I will conclude with 
some recommendation for some additions to the PFJ that may help get 
this document to a state that will actually contribute to the public 
good.
    - Microsoft must fully document all their APIs including the 
following: all OS APIs and OS utility APIs including the Windows 
Installer, Internet Explorer APIs, Outlook APIs, all Office APIs, 
the DirectX suite of APIs, etc.
    - Microsoft must document all document formats fully. This 
includes the following document formats: MS Word, MS Powerpoint, MS 
Excel, MS Visio, MS Publisher, MS Project, etc.
    - Microsoft must fully document their network protocols 
including: Outlook to Exchange, SMB/CIFS protocol, Advanced 
Directory services, etc.
    - Microsoft must provide the above documentation on APIs in a 
reasonable time frame. This means that the documentation must be 
available to competitors as soon as it is available to other product 
groups within Microsoft to do developement. This will prevent other 
product groups within Microsoft from having an unfair lead time on 
product development compared to Microsoft competitors.
    - Microsoft must port all their major desktop applications to 
non-Microsoft Operating Products that hold the three largest desktop 
market shares. The versions of the applications on those Operating 
Products shall not be released more than two months after the 
release on Microsoft Operating Products. This would mean that the MS 
Office suite, MS Visio, MS Publisher, MS Project, MS Internet 
Explorer, MS Outlook, MS Outlook Express, etc, would be ported and 
up to date on the Macintosh, and probably Linux, etc. They must be 
available for similar pricing as on Microsoft Operating Products.
    - Microsoft must port all their major server applications to 
non-Microsoft Operating Products that hold the four largest server 
market shares. The versions of the applications on those Operating 
Products shall not be released more than two months after the 
release on Microsoft Operating Products. This would mean that the MS 
Exchange, MS IIS, MS Enterprise Server, MS Small Business Server, MS 
SQL Server, MS Systems Management Server, MS Content Management 
Server, MS Commerce Server, MS Proxy Server, MS SharePoint Portal 
Server, MS BizTalk Server, MS Host Intergration Server, etc. would 
be ported and up to date on Linux, Sun Solaris, HP HP/UX, etc.
    Joel Martin-System Software Engineer
    Compaq Computer Corporation
    110 Spit Brook Rd, ZKO3-3/U14
    Nashua, NH 03062-2698
    [email protected] 603.884.5061



MTC-00016257

From: Josh Bright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00016258

From: Will Foy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: No to the Settlement
    As part of my duty as a citizen, I respond to your request for 
public comment regarding the proposed settlement to the US v 
Microsoft, as well as the assorted state cases v. Microsoft.
    I call for the US Government to stand firm in its resolution 
against an illegally maintained monopoly. Do not settle without 
firm- and severe-consequences for Microsoft should it 
violate any other law. Microsoft has shown repeatedly its disdain 
for United States Law, as well of that of many states. It is likely 
and expected that if Microsoft emerges from these Anti-trust 
proceedings relatively unscathed, then it will violate the law 
again, it will cost US taxpayers and consumers, and it will stagnate 
innovation in the PC platform.
    Instead of allowing Microsoft to have a wonderful outcome to 
this case, force them instead to open their API's, force them to 
open their source code. Even if the source is open, they may still 
compete. Let the best software development companies win. It opens 
the marketplace, and it is NOTHING close to corporate communism as 
recent Microsoft-sponsored ads and lobbying have suggested.
    Regardless of what you do after this, I urge you in the 
strongest possible way to reject the proposed settlement and try 
again, this time, acting in the best interest of consumers, not 
business.
    Thanks so much for your time and attention in this very crucial 
matter to the whole technology industry.
    Yours,
    William Andrew Foy
    9757 Concord Church Rd
    Lewisville, NC 27023-NC Fifth District
    336.946.2606



MTC-00016259

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is not adequate punishment for previous 
and continued blatant abuse of monopolistic power by Microsoft. I am 
a small business owner (10 years). These actions set precendents. 
Please consider a more dutiful punishment
    Sincerely,
    Joe Laffey



MTC-00016260

From: John Kroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having reviewed the proposed settlement for the Microsoft, I am 
appalled on how it fails to address many of the illegal business 
practices listed in the findings of fact. Additionally, the wording 
of the proposed settlement is so soft, that allows many potential 
avenues for Microsoft to exploit to evade the spirit of the proposed 
settlement. Given Microsoft's past behavior regarding consent 
decree's, it can be safely assumed that they are aware of this and 
caused the wording to be structured in this manner for exactly this 
reason.
    One specific example of this is the Technical Committee. Since 
Microsoft gets to select one committee member who essentially has 
veto power over the third member of the committee, this review 
committee is unlikely to actually accomplish anything. Since 
essentially this committee is supposed to serve as a parole board to 
monitor Microsoft's future behavior, why are they permitted to have 
any input into the committee composition at all? Certainly they

[[Page 26221]]

should be permitted to submit evidence or other material to the 
committee for review, but why are they allowed to have input into 
the selection of a majority of the board members?
    Another example is the limitation that ``No provisions 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.'' This limitation would permit 
Microsoft to hide many APIs needed for a competitor to build a 
product by claiming the API or protocol specification is restricted 
due to security considerations. Since the proposed agreement makes 
no attempt to define or limit what material would be subject to this 
restriction, it is apparently left to Microsoft to make this 
determination.
    Contrary to Microsoft's advertising, they have not produced much 
in the way of actual ``innovation'' to the computer 
industry. In fact, they have significantly stifled innovations by 
other companies where those innovations would threaten Microsoft 
products.
    The Findings of Fact in this case clearly show that Microsoft 
has abused its monopoly position in the software market. The 
proposed settlement does little to address these past abuses or 
prevent future abuses. In my opinion, the settlement in its current 
form is definitely not in the public interest.
    Very respectfully,
    John Kroll
    Systems Analyst
    Milwaukee, WI



MTC-00016261

From: Drew Kime
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. The current proposed settlement does not redress 
the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their 
ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to address Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit 
the future repetition of those abuses. This goes against the very 
foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to commit 
illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Drew Kime



MTC-00016262

From: R. Sean Fulton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the United States of America, I find the 
Microsoft/Justice Department proposed settlement utterly 
unacceptable.
    Richard Sean Fulton
    Pittsburgh, PA



MTC-00016263

From: Dave Damianakes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to register my opinion about the Microsoft settlement. 
Just for the record, I am an Apple user. I have known for a long 
time that Microsoft has had a defacto monopoly and has exercised 
unfair practices to remain dominant. Until the trial, no windows 
user that I knew had any idea that there were other operating 
systems available for Intel machines. In fact, they still are 
unaware of IBM's OS 2, although Linux has been getting more air 
play. And since the trial I have listened to venture capitalists and 
startup owners who have been complaining that money will not be 
invested in a company if they investors think that MS would not like 
the software that would be produced, due to its competitiveness. I 
think more and more, the world are coming to rely on computers, just 
as they were doing with oil during the Standard oil trial. And I 
think that any remedy short of breaking the company up is grossly 
unfair and uncompetitive. (By the way, Microsoft has never been 
innovative. They buy other, innovative, company's products finish 
them, poorly by the way.) I think the company should be broken up 
into a application company, an OS company and a networking (or 
enterprise) company. It should not remain intact. To do other that 
break the company up is to encourage its stranglehold on the 
marketplace.
    Dave Damianakes
    [email protected]
    Never trust a new endeavor that requires you to buy new clothes.
    Dave Damianakes
    [email protected]



MTC-00016264

From: Ryan Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement inadequate
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a travesty. It would be 
laughable if this weren't such a serious matter. Microsoft's 
behavior requires serious remedy, not just a slap on the wrist. The 
future of the computer and internet industries is at stake.
    Ryan Smith
    Creative Director, Monster Labs, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00016265

From: Curtis Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This proposal is not nearly strong enough or -restictive- 
enough. The problem here isn't wether or not the Winodws operating 
system can or should put this icon here, there or even (GOD forbid) 
let you do it- that is just simply and plainly stupid!. The 
problem is the business practices of Bill Gates-this 
``proposal'' does nothing, he will simply find a way 
around it or even ignore it-that is what he does; he's a shark 
and he eats what he wants...
    Curtis Wood
    System administrator
    Bluedomino hosting
    Website: www.bluedomino.net
    Office#: (361)887-7778x205
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00016266

From: Ryan Todd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts.
    That is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not 
for the American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Ryan Todd
    Network Administrator

[[Page 26222]]

    EFO Holdings, Inc.



MTC-00016267

From: Mark Horn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Proposed Settlement is a bad idea...
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    I am a network security engineer and US citizen. I've been 
working with computer networking for 13 years. During that time, 
I've seen Microsoft's ascendancy to power. During that time, I've 
seen innumerable potential competitors get swallowed up by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. But most importantly, during 
that time, I've seen friends and co-workers forced into using 
software, not becuase it best met their needs, but because they had 
no other practical choice. I've seen Netscape be the have the 
highest demand amongst users, only to see that option precluded when 
they tried to buy new computers.
    Consumers have been directly harmed by Microsoft's 
anticompetitive business practices. So I was very encouraged when 
the Department of Justice filed suit, won the case, and prevailed on 
appeal.
    I am, however, disappointed that my government has decided not 
to seriously consider the harm that this company has done to the US 
economy through the maintenance of their illegal monopoly. The 
proposed final judgement is woefully inadequate. It will do nothing 
to increase competition in the computer software marketplace, and in 
some cases will help to preserve Microsoft's monopoly.
    I believe that the current proposal is grossly inadequate given 
the findings of fact. I urge you to throw it out and replace it with 
one that will effectively restore competition to the computer 
software marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Mark J. Horn
    Charlotte, NC



MTC-00016268

From: James W Foster III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Renata,
    I have seen Microsoft so totally crush any competition by not 
building a better product but by threatening anybody that bought the 
competitions product.
    I agree that you have worked hard on this agreement, but I think 
it falls short of enforcing the open economy the USA enjoys.
    Also, I agree with Dan Kegel's analysis.
    James
    James W Foster III 
    Manager of Intra/Internet Development
    Boss Jeffrey R. Allegrezza 
 vnet4605845
    Corporate Intra/Internet Systems
    WORLDCOM-http://www.worldcom.com/-NASDAQ:WCOM
    500 Clinton Center Drive (Corporate Headquarters)
    Clinton, Mississippi (MS) USA 39056
    (601)460-5589 / vnet4605589 / (800)844-1009 / 
FAX(601)926-5589



MTC-00016269

From: Ted M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have read the proposed Microsoft settlement and am astonished 
that it addresses only future conduct, including no meaningful 
punishment for Microsoft's past illegal conduct proven during the 
trial phase of this case. Microsoft has effectively driven a 
steamroller at 100mph through a 30mph zone, leaving crushed 
businesses and the bloody remains of its competitors in its wake, 
and the facts of that case have been proven in court.
    What sane Court would let such a perpetrator go free without 
severe punishment, warning them only to keep to the rules of the 
road in the future, utterly disregarding that Microsoft accomplished 
its goal of clearing its competitors off the road?
    Punishment must be levied on Microsoft so the competition can 
get back on the road-and-back in position to succeed in 
the race. Microsoft must not only play fair (which it should have 
been doing anyway!), but must be competitively handicapped for a 
significant period to compensate for its illegal gains.
    Gravely concerned,
    Ted McManus
    1624 Fordem Ave #202
    Madison, WI 53704



MTC-00016270

From: Richard Finney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Impose harsh penalties on Microsoft, please!
    Ms. Hesse,
    I believe the government should come down hard on Microsoft. 
They use their illegal monopoly to stifle competition. They hurt 
American middle class working folks. Strong regulation and 
pushisment are in order to assure access to the desktop for 
competitors.
    Microsoft is like having only one cable TV company, or one long 
distance phone company, or one cell phone company, or one airline, 
or one car company. We need competition and fair access for the 
little guy to the market.
    Please impose harsh penalties and break up the Microsoft 
monopoly. Guarantee the right for the little guy to place his 
products on the desktop.
    Richard Finney



MTC-00016271

From: Benjamin Blair
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in regards to the Tunney Act public comment period 
on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    The proposed settlement will not prevent Microsoft from 
maintaining its monopoly in the computer industry. The findings of 
fact clearly described a pattern of corporate behavior that 
evidenced little respect for antitrust law or public sentiment. 
Though the proposed remedies themselves may be adequate, the 
enforcement measures will not provide enough incentive for Microsoft 
to fundamentally alter its behavior. History demonstrates that 
Microsoft will not alter its behavior unless it is clearly in its 
competitive interests to do so. The proposed remedies attempt to 
force Microsoft to change its behavior in order to reduce its power 
in the market place. This will not succeed.
    The only measures that can be effective are those that 
immediately change the competitive landscape, and then free 
Microsoft to struggle for power in this new, more level playing 
field. I agree with the court that a structural remedy is cumbersome 
and not likely to be effective. A technological remedy, with 
objective, quantifiable measures, is the only remedy that can be 
both effective and in the public's interest.
    The competitive advantages of an operating system monopoly are 
twofold. First, Microsoft negotiates from a very powerful position 
with OEMs and ISPs. Second, their application software can be 
developed with special knowledge of the operating system and 
(optionally) delivered with the operating system to gain better 
market penetration. Any remedy must address both of these 
monopolistic advantages.
    While I do not claim to be able to construct a better remedy 
myself, I think it is clear that any remedy must involve forcing 
Microsoft to open all of its APIs and file formats. Any time two 
pieces of MS software communicate out-of-process, the protocol for 
their communication must be public.
    Enforcement could come in the form of a court-appointed 
authority that had the right to demand to see the source code of any 
MS-published software and compare the documented APIs to the source 
code. If they were not the same or if the source code is not 
delivered within a few days, MS should be fined 1/356th of it's 
profit (this can be calculated after the fact at the end of each 
quarter) per-day until it satisfies the requirements. This would 
ensure that the applications of Microsoft's competitors have the 
same opportunity to succeed on the Windows platform as those of 
Microsoft itself. Microsoft may maintain its operating systems 
monopoly, but it will not be able to use to establish new monopolies 
in other market segments.
    Thank you very much for reading and considering my comments.
    Regards,
    Ben Blair
    474 N. Lake Shore Dr. APT 4606
    Chicago, IL 60611
    312-464-1743 (home)
    312-362-2478 (work)
    A little about myself:
    24 years old, and have been working in the computer industry for 
the past 8 years. I have been developing software for the Windows 
platform for the past 6 years. I am currently employed as a lead 
software developer and system architect for an options trading firm 
in Chicago, IL. I graduated from the University of Chicago in 1996 
with a BS in Computer Science and a BA in Physics.

[[Page 26223]]



MTC-00016272

From: Chris Lamothe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not move away from a structural remedy, which I 
believe would require less dependence upon future enforcement 
efforts and good faith by Microsoft, and which would jump start a 
more competitive market for applications. If Microsoft is left to 
exercise its own good faith, then self interest will prevail, and we 
cannot allow this from a known monopoly.
    Christopher Lamothe
    Vermont



MTC-00016273

From: Joel Haynie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I feel that the Microsoft Settlement does not punish Microsoft 
enough for it blatant miss use of power. I also feel that the 
settlement is only going to allow Microsoft to further squelch the 
all ready loose grip of the Open Source movement.
    Thank you for your time,
    Joel Haynie
    [email protected]
    www.joel.haynie.com



MTC-00016274

From: Mikael Laakso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is NOT enough to bring back 
basic rights like freedom of speech and freedom of choice to 
opensource software developers.
    Yours, sincerely
    Mikael Laakso
    Bitstream Ky
    Nelj's Linja 2c90
    00530 Helsinki
    email: [email protected]
    tel: +358 44 5651805



MTC-00016275

From: Jed Harris, Pliant Ventures
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    I am deeply concerned that the current proposed settlement fails 
to move the United States toward a competitive desktop OS and 
middleware regime.
    As we have seen the current lack of competition poses major 
risks to national security, as well as imposing major unnecessary 
burdens on software innovators, businesses, and consumers.
    Many analyses have shown clearly that the current proposed 
judgement fails to constrain Microsoft's current abuses of its 
monopoly power and permits tactics that will allow Microsoft to 
maintain and extend this power.
    Unfortunately, Microsoft has already demonstrated that it will 
interpret such settlements in ways that make a mockery of their 
intent. Any agreement reached must clearly and enforceably redefine 
the playing field. Otherwise this process will only undermine and 
call into contempt the effectiveness of our legal and regulatory 
institutions.
    Without an effective agreement we will not meet our needs for a 
reliable software infrastructure, essential to national security. We 
will not sustain a competitive and innovative software marketplace, 
essential for economic vitality and our international competitive 
position. We will not enable businesses and consumers to make the 
most effective, and most cost-effective, use of computers. For all 
these reasons I wish to register my disagreement with the proposed 
settlement in the strongest possible terms.
    Sincerely,
    Jed Harris
    Managing Member, Pliant Ventures



MTC-00016276

From: Schnitzer Productions LLC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Renata B. Hesse:
    I am e mailing you to express my support of Microsoft in the 
current anti trust case against it. I believe that the only thing 
Microsoft has done wrong is to be ``too'' successful, and 
also to neglect contributing to Congressmen's re-election campaigns.
    As a user of Microsoft software, I have found the power and 
convenience and ease of use of their products to be exemplary. Their 
prices are low. Example: A simple product like Microsoft Publisher, 
which cost me $60 several years ago, has revolutionized my business, 
making it possible for me to design all my advertisement, web sites, 
order forms, brochures, etc. Microsoft was good at running it's 
business, while it's browser competitor, Netscape, was good at 
running to Washington. I don't think Netscape should be rewarded for 
that.
    And I don't think government has any business punishing 
businessmen who are ``arrogant'' enough to believe that 
they have a right to run their businesses as they see fit, as long 
as they don't forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to do 
likewise.
    If you want to prosecute a true monopoly, then go after a 
coercive monopoly like the Post Office. Now THERE is an institution 
which harms consumers and forcibly excludes competitors from the 
market. Ignoring the Postal Monopoly while persecuting Microsoft 
reflects a concern about political power and authority, not about 
protecting ``consumers''.
    Yours,
    Gary Schnitzer
    5521 Greenville Avenue
    Suite 104-565
    Dallas, TX 75206
    Schnitzer Productions LLC dba Violin Romance Recordings
    www.moodmusic.com



MTC-00016277

From: Dave Damianakes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (one other thing)
    One other thing: What is the point of having anti trust laws and 
laws against monopolies, if we just leave the monoply intact?
    Dave Damianakes
    [email protected] -
    Never trust a new endeavor that requires you to buy new clothes.
    Dave Damianakes
    [email protected]



MTC-00016278

From: Danny Espinoza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom in may concern:
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the US does not 
sufficiently punish the company for its proven illegal, anti-
competitive actions. Microsoft's flagrant abuse of their monopoly 
has forever altered the technology marketplace. The penalty must 
reflect this fact.
    Thank you,
    Danny Espinoza
    2601 Woodley Pl NW Apt 903
    Washington, DC 20008



MTC-00016279

From: Dave Lyon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just to add my two cents on the settlement ideas being 
discussed: I feel that every ``remedy'' that has yet been 
suggested has been not a penalty but at best a delay for Microsoft's 
monopolistic methods.The whole ``give software to 
schools'' thing is ridiculous. Making copies of their own 
software costs Microsoft maybe a penny per CD and makes a whole new 
generation of computer users learn things the Microsoft way. If 
anything this is an added bonus.
    The remedy should not so much focus on a payment or compensation 
of some kind as it should a restraint on Microsoft's business 
practices. While this case has been going on, Microsoft has released 
a new Operating System that integrates like no other before it a 
slew of Microsoft programs like the Internet Explorer browser and 
the Windows Media Player. In addition, built into the system are 
hooks that tie into Microsoft's new push called .Net which aims to 
remake the world wide web in the image of Microsoft. Any remedy 
should in some way monitor .Net and assure fair business practices. 
.Net will succeed (if it succeeds) because the whole model is based 
on the idea that the normal person's operating system is Windows and 
Microsoft leverages that fact to make it easier for other businesses 
to implement .Net instead of competing platforms. In the past 
Microsoft has bundled their own programs. Now they will effectively 
be bundling the ``Microsoft Internet'' in the operating 
system itself. That is wrong and must be dealt with in the 
settlement.
    Dave Lyon
    TeachStream Web Engineer

[[Page 26224]]

    www.teachstream.com



MTC-00016280

From: Piehl, Curby A.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the opinion of this technician, the proposed final judgement 
in the Microsoft anti-trust case is not in the public interest. It 
allows Microsoft to continue anti-competitive practices while 
providing for no effective enforcement mechanism should Microsoft 
violate the already weak terms of the agreement.
    I ask you to read and consider the information in the link 
below.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Thank you for your time,
    Curby Piehl
    Help Desk Analyst



MTC-00016281

From: Fred T. Metcalf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am greatly saddened by the so-called ``slap on the 
wrist'' remedy being offered in the Microsoft anti-trust case. 
What has been proposed is not even a slap on the wrist, it is a 
release into the public sector of an unrepentant criminal 
corporation. Criminal? Yes, having been found guilty implies having 
broken the law, i.e., having commited criminal acts. I sugget that 
the court make the strongest possible review of the proposed 
settlement in light of the court decisions already made, and in 
light of the damage done to parts of the computer industry over a 
period of many years by Microsoft.
    The proposed settlement should be rejected, and Microsoft be 
made to pay for their breaking of the law-both financially and 
in very strong conduct restrictions placed on their business 
practices.
    Frederic T. Metcalf



MTC-00016282

From: Myke Komarnitsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I work in the 
computer industry (I own my own company, focusing on web 
development), and in my opinion, I believe the settlement would be a 
net negative for my industry, and for the overall economy. I hope 
that the responsibility you have in this issue will be discharged 
correctly.
    Thank you,
    Myke Komarnitsky
    President, Komar Consulting Group
    Michael Komarnitsky Komar Consulting Group
    303.818.3718 http://www.komar.biz
    http://climbingboulder.com -



MTC-00016283

From: Marshall Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement does little to force 
Microsoft to change it's monopoly behavior, and in fact will allow 
(even help) Microsoft gain a stronger market share.
    Marshall Lewis
    Senior Programmer
    ScholarOne Inc.
    (434)817-2040x172



MTC-00016284

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad.
    Microsoft buys-out or crushes competition and needs to be 
stopped.
    Andrew Klopp
    Helpdesk Supervisor
    Ultimate Electronics
    (303)412-2525 ext. 1192



MTC-00016285

From: Mark and Connie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comment
    Greetings,
    I am dissapointed that your court has not adopted a structural 
remedy in the Microsoft case, which I believe is the only long term 
solution to adressing Microsofts past, and sure to be future abuses. 
I have personally been affected by Microsofts actions. Previous 
laptop computer purchases have forced me to purchase Microsoft 
operating systems with the systems, which I neither want nor need. 
Typically, Microsoft operating systems installed with new PC's are 
``tied'' to the BIOS, making it impossible to sell the 
unwanted operating system to recoup my additional costs. In 
addition, Microsofts EULA prohibits secondary license transfers of 
unwanted operating systems that users are forced to purchase.
    Last year I purchased an intel server from the second largest 
intel computer vendor, which ``builds to order'', with the 
intention of running a custom written security application on 
OpenBSD. I requested a machine without a Microsoft operating system 
license to lower the cost, as normally the systems were preloaded 
with Windows 2000 and IIS. I was told that my only option was to 
have it loaded with Linux, at an extra cost of $1,000 over the cost 
of the system with Windows 2000! I found it incredible that by 
eliminating a Microsoft server license, and replacing it with 
something free,would raise the cost by $1,000. I was told that the 
extra cost was due to the extra ``integration costs'' of 
linux. Since I had no intention of running Linux on the system 
anyway, and intended on running OpenBSD, I insisted that it be 
shipped with no operating system for a cost less than the Windows 
2000 preload. I was told that their agreement with Microsoft 
prohibited sending any system without a Microsoft operatnig system, 
for less than the cost of a Microsoft preloaded system.
    In addition, Microsoft also currently is limiting computer 
makers from installing other operating systems in ``dual 
boot'' configurations, due to restrictions on the boot loader. 
This effectively removes customer choice, and insures further 
customer ``lock in''. I realize your language tries to 
adress this practice, but without an enforcement mechanism with more 
power, vendors will simply cave in to Microsoft demands. Your 
proposed pricing and technical disclosure language is riddled with 
loopholes which will accomplish nothing to address future abuse by 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your consideration



MTC-00016286

From: Greer Pedoe
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am Canadian, so I'll keep it short. Look around you: if it's 
not owned by Microsoft, then it's going bankrupt at their hands. 
They do not deserve a settlement such as the one proposed. Be as 
merciless to them as they are to their competitors.
    Thank you for your time,
    Greer Pedoe
    Computer Science Co-op Student
    University of Waterloo
    Waterloo, Ontario
    N2L-3G5



MTC-00016287

From: The Real Enchilada
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Hal Black, I am a resident of Columbia, HID, and am 
the Directorof Software for a small internet security company. I 
think the proposedsettlement for the Microsoft anti-trust suit is 
insufficient and will not break Microsoft's trust. Rather than 
reiterate what has already been written, I have encluded 
excerptsfrom Dan Kegel's excellent essay on the problems with the 
settlement whichoutlines some of the major flaws with the 
settlement.
    How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware, and 
``Windows OS'' be defined?The definitions of various terms 
in Part VI of the PFJ differ fromthe definitions in the Findings of 
Fact and in common usage, apparantlyto Microsoft's benefit. Here are 
some examples:Definition A: ``API''The Findings of Fact 
( 2 define ``API'' to mean the interfacesbetween 
application programs and the operating system. However, the PFJ's 
Definition A defines it to mean only the interfacesbetween Microsoft 
Middleware and Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by 
other application programs. For instance, the PFJ's definition of 
API might omit important APIs suchas the Microsoft Installer APIs 
which are used by installer programsto install software on Windows. 
Definition J: ``Microsoft Middleware''The Findings of Fact 
( 28) define ``middleware'' to mean application 
software that itself presents a set of APIs which allow users to 
writenew applications without reference to the underlying operating 
system. Definition J defines it in a much more restrictive way,and 
allows Microsoft to exclude any software from being coveredby the 
definition in two ways:
    By changing product version numbers. For example, if the next 
version of Internet

[[Page 26225]]

Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead of ``7'' 
or ``7.0'' it would not be deemed Microsoft Middleware by 
the PFJ. By changing how Microsoft distributes Windows or its 
middleware. For example, if Microsoft introduced a version of 
Windows which was only available via the Windows Update service, 
then nothing in thatversion of Windows would be considered Microsoft 
Middleware, regardlessof whether Microsoft added it initially or in 
a later update. This is analogous to the loophole in the 1995 
consent decree thatallowed Microsoft to bundle its browser by 
integrating it into theoperating system. Definition K: 
``Microsoft Middleware Product''Definition K defines 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' to mean 
essentiallyInternet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ),Windows Media 
Player (WMP), windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE). The 
inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET is 
questionable;Microsoft has essentially designated
    Microsoft.NET and C# as the successors to Java, so on that 
basis one would expect Microsoft.NET to be included in the 
definition.
    The inclusion of Outlook Express and not Outlook is 
questionable, asOutlook (different and more powerful than Outlook 
Express) is a moreimportant product in business, and fits the 
definition of middlewarebetter than Outlook Express. The exclusion 
of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many components of Microsoft 
Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition of middleware. For 
instance, there is an active market in software written to runon top 
of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and many applicationsare 
deveoped for Microsoft Access by people who have no knowledge 
ofWindows APIs.Definition U: ``Windows Operating System 
Product''Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating 
systems. Yet thePFJ in definition U defines a ``Windows 
Operating System Product'' to meanonly Windows 2000 
Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional,and their 
successors. This purposely excludes the Intel-compatibleoperating 
systemsWindows XP Tablet PC Edition andWindows CE; many applications 
written to the Win32 APIs can run unchanged onWindows 2000, Windows 
XP Tablet PC Edition, and Windows CE,and with minor recompilation, 
can also be run on Pocket PC.Microsoft even proclaims 
atwww.microsoft.com/windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp: ``The 
Tablet PC is the next-generation mobile business PC, and it will 
beavailable from leading computer makers in the second half of 2002. 
TheTablet PC runs the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and 
featuresthe capabilities of current business laptops, including 
attached ordetachable keyboards and the ability to run Windows-based 
applications.'' and Pocket PC: Powered by WindowsMicrosoft is 
clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and Pocket PCin places 
(e.g. portable computers used by businessmen) currently servedby 
Windows XP Home Edition,and thus appears to be trying to evade the 
Final Judgment's provisions. This is but one example of how 
Microsoft can evade the provisions ofthe Final Judgment by shifting 
its efforts away from the Operating Systems listed in Definition U 
and towards Windows XP Tablet Edition, Windows CE,Pocket PC, X-Box, 
or some other Microsoft Operating System thatcan run Windows 
applications. How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications 
Barrier to Entry?The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to 
Entry in two ways: By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and 
IHVs who support ordevelop alternatives to Windows.
    By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the 
useof non-Microsoft middleware. A third option not provided by the 
PFJ would be to make sure thatMicrosoft raises no artificial 
barriers against non-Microsoftoperating systems which implement the 
APIs needed to runapplication programs written for Windows. 
TheFindings of Fact (52)considered the possibility that 
competing operating systems could implement the WindowsAPIs and 
thereby directly run software written for Windows as a way of 
circumventing theApplications Barrier to Entry. This is in fact the 
route being taken by the Linux operatingsystem, which includes 
middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatibleoperating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity to 
encouragecompetition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market.Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restrictsinformation released by those sections to be used 
``for the sole purposeof interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the 
information for the purpose of writing operating systems that 
interoperate with Windows programs. How should the Final Judgment be 
enforced?The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a 
Technical Committee withinvestigative powers, but appears to leave 
all actual enforcement tothe legal system. What information needs to 
be released to ISVs to encourage competition, and under what 
terms?The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical 
informationto ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several 
ways:1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirementsSection III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of 
competing middlewareto meet ``reasonable technical 
requirements'' seven months before newreleases of Windows, yet 
it does not require Microsoft to disclose thoserequirements in 
advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly beforethe deadline, and 
not informing ISVs. 2. API documentation is released too late to 
help ISVsSection III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via 
MSDN or similarmeans the documentation for the APIs used by 
Microsoft Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release 
would be required at thetime of the final beta test of the covered 
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be 
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their 
products to meet therequirements of section III.H.3, which states 
that competing middlewarecan be locked out if it fails to meet 
unspecified technical requirementsseven months before the final beta 
test of a new version of Windows. 3. Many important APIs would 
remain undocumentedThe PFJ's overly narrow definitions of 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' and 
``API''means that Section III.D.'s requirement to release 
information about Windows interfaces would not cover many important 
interfaces.4.
    Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the Released 
DocumentationISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in 
Findings of Fact ( 52)sometimes have difficulty understanding 
various undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under 
section III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs-except that the 
PFJ disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid 
running afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their 
engineers into two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on 
Windows-only applications; andthose who cannot refer to MSDN because 
they work on applications which also run on non-Microsoft operating 
systems. This would constitute retaliation against ISVs who support 
competing operating systems.5. File Formats Remain UndocumentedNo 
part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any information about 
file formats,even though undocumented Microsoft file formats form 
part of the ApplicationsBarrier to Entry (see ``Findings of 
Fact'' 20 and  39).6. Patents covering the Windows 
APIs remain undisclosedSection III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft 
to offer to license certainintellectual property rights, but it does 
nothing to require Microsoftto clearly announce which of its many 
software patents protect the Windows APIs(perhaps in the style 
proposed by the W3C;
    seehttp://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/#sec-
disclosure).This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in an 
uncertain state:are they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft 
software patents? This can scareaway potential users, as illustrated 
by this report from Codeweavers, Inc. :When selecting a method of 
porting a major application to Linux, oneprospect of mine was 
comparing Wine [a competing implementation of someof the Windows 
APIs] and a toolkit called ``MainWin'. MainWin is made 
byMainsoft, and Mainsoft licenses its software from Microsoft. 
However, thiscustomer elected to go with the Mainsoft option 
instead. I was told that one of the key decision making factors was 
thatMainsoft representatives had stated that Microsoft had certain 
criticalpatents that Wine was violating. My customer could not risk 
crossingMicrosoft, and declined to use Wine. I didn't even have a 
chance todetermine which patents were supposedly violated; nor to 
disprove thevalidity of this claim. The PFJ, by allowing this 
unclear legal situation to continue, is inhibiting the market 
acceptance of competing operating systems. Which practices towards 
OEMs should be prohibited?The PFJ prohibits certain

[[Page 26226]]

behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs,but curiously allows the 
following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that shipsPersonal Computers containing a competing Operating System 
but noMicrosoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
termsand at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, includingimportant regional `white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products. Section III.B. also allows 
Microsoft to offer unspecified Market Development Allowances 
-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For instance, Microsoft 
could offerdiscounts on Windows to OEMs based on the number of 
copies of MicrosoftOffice or Pocket PC systems sold by that OEM. In 
effect, this allowsMicrosoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systemsto increase its market share in other 
areas, such as office software or ARM-compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoftto 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, andto 
leverage it into new areas.Which practices towards ISVs should be 
prohibited?Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain 
exclusionarylicensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs. However, 
Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, none of 
whichare mentioned in the PFJ.Several of Microsoft's 
products'' licenses prohibit theproducts'' use with 
popular non-Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples 
are given below. 1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship 
Open Source applicationsThe Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK 
EULA states.., you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLECOMPONENT 
in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. 
``PubliclyAvailable Software'' means each of (i) any 
software that contains, oris derived in any manner (in whole or in 
part) from, any software thatis distributed as free software, open 
source software (e.g. Linux) orsimilar licensing or distribution 
models ...Publicly Available Software includes, without 
limitation,software licensed or distributed under any of the 
following licenses ordistribution models, or licenses or 
distribution models similar to any ofthe following: GNU's General 
Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL{LGPL); The Artistic 
License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public License;the Netscape Public 
License; the Sun Community Source License (SCSL); ...Many Windows 
APIs, including Media Encoder, are shipped by Microsoft asadd-on 
SDKs with associated redistributable components. Applications 
thatwish to use them must include the add-ons, even though they 
might laterbecome a standard part of Windows. Microsoft often 
provides those SDKsunder End User License Agreements (EULAs) 
prohibiting their use with Open Source applications. Thisharms ISVs 
who choose to distribute their applications under Open 
Sourcelicenses; they must hope that the enduser has a sufficiently 
up-to-date version of the addon API installed, which is often not 
the case. Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA 
include the competingmiddleware product Netscape 6 and the competing 
office suite StarOffice;these EULAs thus can cause support problems 
for, and discourage the useof, competing middleware and office 
suites. Additionally, since Open Source applications tend to also 
run on non-Microsoft operatingsystems, any resulting loss of market 
share by Open Source applications indirectly harms competing 
operating systems. 2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who 
target Windows-compatible competing Operating SystemsThe Microsoft 
Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++,is the primary 
toolkit used by ISVs to create Windows-compatible applications. The 
Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: ``Distribution Terms. You may 
reproduce and distribute ... the Redistributable Components... 
provided that (a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only 
in conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product...'' This makes it 
illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++on Windows-
compatible competing operating systems. By allowing these 
exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is contributingto the Applications 
Barrier to Entry faced by competing operating systems. Which 
practices towards large users should be prohibited? The PFJ places 
restrictions on how Microsoft licenses its products to OEMs, butnot 
on how it licenses products to large users such as corporations, 
universities,or state and local goverments, collectively referred to 
as ``enterprises'.
    Yet enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-
processor licenses whichwere prohibited by the 1994 consent decree 
in the earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case,in that a fee is 
charged for each desktop or portable computer which couldrun a 
Microsoft operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft 
software isactually installed on the affected computer. These 
agreements are anticompetitivebecause they remove any financial 
incentive for individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft 
software. Which practices towards end users should be prohibited? 
Microsoft has used both restrictive licenses and intentional 
incompatibilitiesto discourage users from running Windows 
applications onWindows-compatible competing operating systems. Two 
examples aregiven below.1. Microsoft uses license terms which 
prohibit the use of Windows-compatible competing operating 
systemsMSNBC (a subsidiary of Microsoft) offers software called 
NewsAlert. Its EULA states ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the 
right to install and usecopies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your 
computers running validlylicensed copies of the operating system for 
which the SOFTWAREPRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 
95; MicrosoftWindows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3. x, Macintosh, 
etc.]. ...'' Only the Windows version appears to be available 
for download. Users who run competing operating systems (such as 
Linux) which can run some Windows programs might wish to run the 
Windows version of NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this.
    MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated 
copiesof operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve 
the same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For 
instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install 
and usecopies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running 
validlylicensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating 
system.'' 2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in 
Windows 3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating 
systemsAn episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust 
lawsuitillustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called 
MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS APIto call up the services of 
the operating system. Digital Research offered acompeting operating 
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, andcould 
run programs written for MS-DOS.
    Windows 3.1 and earlier were not operating systems per se, but 
rather middleware that used the DOS API to interoperate with the 
operating system. Microsoft was concerned with the competitive 
threat posed by DR-DOS, andadded code to beta copies of 
Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and misleadingerror 
messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's successor 
company, Caldera, brought a privateantitrust suit against Microsoft 
in 1996. (See the original complaint, andCaldera's consolidated 
response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment.)The 
judge in the case ruled that ``Caldera has presented sufficient 
evidence that the incompatibilitiesalleged were part of an 
anticompetitive scheme byMicrosoft.'' That case was settled out 
of court in 1999, and no court has fully exploredthe alleged 
conduct. The concern here is that, as competing operating systems 
emerge whichare able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might 
try to sabotageWindows applications, middleware, and development 
tools so that theycannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, 
just as they did earlierwith Windows 3.1. The PFJ as currently 
written does nothing to prohibit these kindsof restrictive licenses 
and intentional incompatibilities,and thus encourages Microsoft to 
use these techniquesto enhance the Applications Barrier to Entry, 
and harming those consumers who use non-Microsoft operating 
systemsand wish to use Microsoft applications software. Is the 
Proposed Final Judgement in the public interest?The problems 
identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment can be summarized 
as follows:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to 
Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, andeven 
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret 
APIs, butit defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered.

[[Page 26227]]

    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
withcompeting middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should thereforeallow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term sonarrowly that it doesn't coverWindows XP Tablet 
PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box -operating 
systems that all use the Win32 API and are advertizedas being 
``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements,allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVsso they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
thedeadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation tohelp make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
aboutthe format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patentsprotect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents?This can scare away 
potential users. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License 
Terms currently used by Microsoft Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keepOpen Source apps from running on 
Windows. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to 
keepWindows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies,state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computerswhich could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
forcomputers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once 
banned by the1994 consent decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft Microsoft has in the past inserted 
intentional incompatibilities inits applications to keep them from 
running on competing operating systems.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs 
The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
PersonalComputers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoftoperating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMsbased on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. Considering these problems,one must conclude 
that the Proposed Final Judgment as writtenallows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices tocontinue, and would delay 
the emergence of competing Windows-compatibleoperating systems. 
Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest,and should not be adopted without addressing these issues. 
Strengthening the PFJThe above discussion shows that the PFJ does 
not satisfy the Court of Appeals'' mandate.
    Some of the plaintiff States have proposedan alternate 
settlement which fixes many of the problems identifiedabove. The 
States'' proposal is quite different from the PFJ as a 
whole,but it contains many elements which are similar to elements of 
the PFJ,with small yet crucial changes. In the sections below, I 
suggest amendments to the PFJ that attempt to resolve some of the 
demonstrated problems(time pressure has prevented a more complete 
list of amendments).When discussing amendments, PFJ text is shown 
indented;removed text in shown in [bracketed strikeout],and new text 
in bold italics.Correcting the PFJ's definitionsDefinition U should 
be amended to read U. ``Windows Operating System Product'' 
means [the software code (asopposed to source code) distributed 
commercially by Microsoft for usewith Personal Computers as Windows 
2000 Professional, Windows XP Home,Windows XP Professional, and 
successors to the foregoing, including thePersonal Computer versions 
of the products currently code named ``Longhorn''and 
``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades, 
bug fixes,service packs, etc. The software code that comprises a 
Windows OperatingSystem Product shall be determined by Microsoft in 
its sole discretion.]any software or firmware code distributed 
commercially by Microsoftthat is capable of executing any subset of 
the Win32 APIs, includingwithout exclusion Windows 2000 
Professional, Windows XP Home,Windows XP Professional,Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition,Windows CE,PocketPC 2002,and successors to the 
foregoing, including theproducts currently code named 
``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and 
theirsuccessors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, 
etc.Release of information to ISVsTBD Section E should be amended to 
read... Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and 
OEMs, [for thesole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product,]for the purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Productor with application software written 
for Windows,via the Microsoft Developer Network (``MSDN'') 
or similar mechanisms, theAPIs and related Documentation that are 
used by Microsoft Middleware tointeroperate with a Windows Operating 
System Product. ...



MTC-00016288

From: Rob Leary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 
601 D Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement is 
not a powerful enough remedy for the personal computer market or 
U.S. consumers in general. The proposal, as written, is technically 
flawed, and does not provide enough mechanisms to penalize Microsoft 
for violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
    In particular, I believe that Microsoft must provide significant 
technical details, a minimum of 6 months in advance, to all software 
vendors regarding changes to the Windows APIs. Without this, 
Microsoft will be able to make changes to the APIs, effectively 
disabling non-Microsoft products, while introducing their own 
competing products that work. I strongly urge the Justice Department 
and federal courts to instead use the proposed remedy from the nine 
dissenting states (http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-
remedy-filing.pdf) as a more reasonable, robust remedy that 
will truly help promote competition and innovation in the 
marketplace. Otherwise, Microsoft will continue to use it's monopoly 
power to stifle progress, something we cannot afford in today's 
society and economy.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Leary
    [email protected]



MTC-00016289

From: t.gauslin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the proposed settlement to the Microsoft Antitrust 
case and feel that it does not provide adequate reparations to the 
competitors and consumers harmed by Microsoft's business practices. 
Their behavior has caused a good deal of harm to the computer 
industry's landscape. A choice of one is not a choice at all.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Gauslin
    [email protected]



MTC-00016290

From: David Orman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the current MS settlement agreement. The current 
settlement does nothing to remedy to current situation which only 
seems to be getting worse as time goes on. The language of the 
current settlement is much to weak and allows infinite loopholes for 
Microsoft run through.
    I also find the naming of specific products in section III to be 
counterproductive. If Microsoft merely comes out with a new version 
with a different name and a slightly

[[Page 26228]]

changed API the entire section becomes pointless. Section VI suffers 
from a similar problem. By the time this settlement goes into effect 
none of the ``Windows Operating System Products'' 
(definition U) will be relevant to the market anymore. Microsoft has 
scheduled 2 more OS upgrades in the next 2 years, merely giving them 
a different name will remove them from this judgment.
    David Orman
    Network Administrator
    ISU Center for NDE



MTC-00016291

From: Marshall Reeves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am upset about the Microsoft settlement and the appearance 
that the company can get away with a minor handslap after running 
many competing software development companies out of business. I 
feel that as long as Microsoft is allowed to, they will continue to 
incorporate software functionality that was previously a feature of 
a commercial non-operating system product, into their operating 
system. Since the various versions of Windows are pervasive on the 
desktop, consumers will not buy competing software products when 
their functionality has been bundled into Windows, apparently for 
free. Microsoft has had a habit of doing this as evidenced by disk 
compression software when MSDOS was the pervasive operating system 
and with browsers and multimedia software in Windows. This practice 
will continue to cause smaller software companies to evaporate or be 
swallowed whole by Microsoft.
    I feel that a much better remedy would be to define what an 
operating system is and place restrictions on moving other software 
content into it. This would force Microsoft to sell products in a 
fair and competitive market rather than disguising them as 
components of operating system that is purchased by virtually all pc 
users.
    Sincerely,
    Paul M. Reeves



MTC-00016292

From: ereth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in response to the Proposed Final Judgement in the 
anti-trust case against Microsoft Corporation. I am opposed to this 
judgement and feel that it does little, if anything, to deter the 
sorts of practices that Microsoft has used to maintain the monopoly 
it has obtained through anti-competitive practices.
    By way of background I am currently a Systems Administrator who 
has began working with computers in college in 1977. I have worked 
on a variety of systems, both with and without Microsoft Operating 
Systems or applications, from micros to minis to mainframes. One of 
the things the Proposed Final Judgement fails to address is the 
proprietary, undocumented file formats that Microsoft uses to hold a 
users data hostage. An office which creates all their documents in 
Word and Excel for a year, but decides to change operating systems 
or even applications, immediately discovers that those proprietary 
secret file formats are holding their data hostage. Microsoft file 
formats are notoriously difficult to reverse-engineer and no 
application currently shipping on any computing platform can 
reliably open and save to (without losing any features or 
formatting) a Microsoft file format, other than a Microsoft 
application.
    Companies with thousands of documents find they must continue to 
use Microsoft applications, at whatever price Microsoft chooses to 
charge, in order to have access to their own data. The alternative 
is to rekey everything, a tremendous burden both financially and in 
terms of productivity.
    In fact, many purchases of Microsoft Office upgrades are forced 
on end users because someone they deal with sends them a file from a 
new version that their old version can't open.
    Microsoft should be forced to make publicly available their file 
formats, and adhere to them. There is nothing special about a file 
format and it will not harm Microsoft to have these available, 
except in that it prevents vendor lock-in and people would have the 
freedom to choose their application based on price, performance and 
support. Adobe maintains it's position atop the graphics industry 
and the Photoshop file format and the Portable Document Format (PDF) 
are widely known and used in their competitors applications. In 
fact, the graphics industry uses almost exclusively open formats, so 
that files can be viewed and edited on any platform by any 
application.



MTC-00016293

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as proposed is a bad idea. It does provide for 
the creation of a Technical Committee with investigative powers, but 
appears to leave all actual enforcement to the legal system. 
Microsoft has proven that it can keep the legal system tied up for 
years. It has poor definitions for key terms like ``API'', 
``Middleware'', and ``Windows OS''.
    It does not provide for advanced notice of changes in API. This 
is bad because it allows competting middleware to be locked out if 
it fails to meet unspecified technical requirements seven months 
before the final beta test of a new version of Windows, but the 
changes to the api do not have to be documented until the final beta 
test. There are many places where the specific section sounds fine, 
but when definitions and requirements from other sections are taken 
into account, the final results is an agreement that does little to 
change the way Microsoft does bussiness.
    Reece Dike



MTC-00016294

From: Kevin Rayhons
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am mailing you to cite my view that the settlement proposed 
for Microsoft is not enough. I have been informed and encouraged to 
send this because of the reasons laid out on this site http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    I feel that this settlement is worded very weakly, and that the 
punishments for disobeying the settlement have no force at all. If 
Microsoft does not follow the rules in the first place, nothing will 
make me think they will start to follow them if the rules against 
them last longer. I feel it's like convincing a child to not do 
something by telling them not to do it. Then when they do it, they 
are just told not to do it again.
    Please take the time to do this right. Look at the ideas put 
forth on the webpage I mentioned, and make a better judgment that 
will not potentionally benefit Microsoft.
    thank you



MTC-00016295

From: Eric Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to state my opinion that the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft is insufficient, and truly a bad idea for the competitive 
welfare of our country's economy.
    I agree with and stand by Dan Kegel's well-written set of 
objections, located at:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Thank you for your time,
    -Eric Cook
    [email protected]
    Editor, Simulated.net, Allsound.org



MTC-00016296

From: Joshua Crone
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I DISAGREE with the proposed Microsoft Antitrust settlement.
    Joshua Crone
    Unix Systems Administrator
    Advertising.Com Inc.
    www.advertising.com
    410.244.1370 x13778
    Public key available by request
    perl -e
    We bring innovation to interactive communication.
    Advertising.com-Superior Technology. Superior Performance.



MTC-00016297

From: Alan B. Heirich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am writing to you under the Tunney act to express my concerns 
about the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case. As a 
software engineer with 20 years experience, PhD trained computer 
scientist, and senior architect for a major computer manufacturer, I 
have first-hand experience with Microsoft executives and the 
business practices that govern the PC and enterprise computing 
industries. It is my opinion that the proposed settlement will have 
no effect on Microsoft conduct and will lead to a continuation of 
the status quo monopoly in the market for

[[Page 26229]]

desktop operating systems and applications. This belief is based on 
several observations:
    1. Microsoft is deceitful-in the past Microsoft has shown 
its willingness to evade governmental restrictions. Any proposed 
settlement should acknowledge that the company behaves in ways that 
fail to meet high ethical standards, and remedies should be designed 
in anticipation of attempts at evasion.
    2. Linux faces unreasonable barriers to entry-I am writing 
this note as a private citizen and am not speaking for my employer, 
a major computer vendor. My experience in developing products for 
the industry has taught me that at the present time it is impossible 
to ship computers containing Linux without paying Microsoft for a 
Windows license. This is not explicitly due to retaliation, but 
instead is a result of the status quo of installing Windows on every 
computer to be shipped. The cost for labor to remove Windows and 
replace it with Linux is higher than the cost of a Windows license. 
Since Linux is a free operating systems users do not expect to pay 
for it, and in particular do not expect to pay for the cost of a 
Windows license plus the cost of the labor to install Linux. As a 
result Linux faces a de facto barrier to entry in desktop and server 
markets that is not addressed by the proposed antitrust settlement. 
This barrier is a result of the monopolistic practices that the 
courts have held to be in violation of antitrust provisions. As a 
result I fell the settlement should explicitly address this barrier.
    3. The proposed settlement does not adequately require Microsoft 
to disclose APIs, and gives the company too much latitude in 
defining what it will disclose. In light of the past history of 
evasion by this company this can only be described as a loophole big 
enough to drive a truck through, and we should assume that Microsoft 
will exploit this loophole in ways that are inconsistent with the 
spirit of the settelement.
    4. The settlement focusses on too narrow a range of products, 
specifically recent and current products, and fails to account for 
future products that are intellectual derivatives of current 
products. In software all that is necessary to create a 
``new'' product is to develop a new source code base. This 
source code base may simply be a rewrite of an existing product, and 
this is in fact the case with the ongoing evolution of the Windows 
operating system. Microsoft can circumvent many of the important 
restrictions in the course of their normal practice of upgrading 
their products. I feel the settlement should be written to cover all 
present and future Microsoft operationg systems.
    Thank you. I hope that the department of justice will understand 
the importance of a competition in the computer industry, and will 
take effective steps to permanently change the behavior of this 
convicted monopolist.



MTC-00016298

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disgusted at Microsoft's ability to buy immunity. 
Government officials have a duty to place the good of the people 
before all else. Do your duty.
    Brad Showalter
    Richmond, VA



MTC-00016299

From: Don Hugo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the Proposed Final Judgement in the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case will affect their current monopoly in the 
software industry.
    The DOJ's settlement was brokered by Bush administration 
appointee Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James, head of the 
DOJ's antitrust division. But career officials at the Justice 
Department, who had pursued the case since the beginning, displayed 
their apparent displeasure with the agreement by not signing it.
    This is just one example of many things that I believe are wrong 
in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Donald D Hugo III



MTC-00016300

From: Timothy MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I find the proposed Microsoft settlement unsatisfactory. For 
instance:
-The definitions of ``API'' and ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' are overly narrow, not covering many 
important interfaces. This would allow Microsoft to obscure key 
information and thereby render that information that was released 
useless.
-No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release file format 
information, even though undocumented file formats form part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    Regards,
    Timothy MacDonald
    [email protected]



MTC-00016301

From: Erich Bratton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should 
become a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops 
to an acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's 
competitors is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft 
product lines, before regulation is lifted. Even after being found 
guilty of being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not 
changed. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe 
criminal penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I 
can see will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a 
state of competition. Imagine the damage to the United States if 
Microsoft were to fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are 
greater than merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00016302

From: Pam Farr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    As a person who's livelihood is testing software, I have to let 
you know that the recently proposed settlement with Microsoft is a 
bad idea.
    Microsoft is a monoculture. We would not plant the same strain 
of corn, or culture all the same trees or husband only one breed of 
cows across the country for fear of a devasting disease wiping out 
the entire group. Anything that allowing the expansion of one system 
(to the degree Microsoft currently holds) guarantees contraction of 
all other systems and this ruling smacks of that. In this case, one 
of the side issues here is national security which needs to be 
aggressively addressed.
    This is potentially bad, bad management.
    Sincerely,
    Pam Seals



MTC-00016303

From: Perry, Philip
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm a computer programmer who works with Microsoft technology at 
work, and Linux at home. As one who works with both technologies, I 
think I'm somewhat familiar with Microsoft and how it affects other 
companies and competition in my industry. And, I'm writing to tell 
you that settling the case with Microsoft is a bad idea. A really 
bad idea.
    First of all, Microsoft wants above all else to put this case 
behind it and get back to its main business-squelching 
innovation by other companies. I've been following this field for 
years now, since at least 1991, and this company is absolutely 
without scruple. Whenever they think even a tiny bit of profit may 
be squeezed out of a potential business, they move in, buy up any 
companies they can and destroy any companies they can't buy, and 
seize control of it. This destroys competition, and consumers like 
me have to settle for Microsoft's inferior version of whatever 
technology is being seized. It's happened again and again, and now 
with XP it's happening with media players and plugins. If you look 
over the situation, you'll see that this company isn't going to stop 
its behavior unless you, in the DOJ, force it to. They're even 
breaking into the market for appliances-their XBox is only a 
first step, the end result of which will be Microsoft products 
throughout a person's home, and the destruction of competition in a 
number of other industries like the appliance industry (do you 
really want to end up with a Microsoft refrigerator? Do you want a

[[Page 26230]]

Microsoft television? What will Microsoft be able to do to 
competitors when it is able to levy that much reach into a users 
home? And, don't kid yourself about this being a natural result of 
their current efforts-their manufacturing facilities are able 
to tool up for any product at all rather quickly, primarily because 
they outsource everything instead of trying to build it themselves). 
The sooner you realize that the XBox's radically new manufacturing 
approach (outsourcing the manufacturing and design, etc) is almost 
certainly a pilot program for future plans. If it succeeds, there's 
no telling how far they can take this. I for one don't want to be 
stuck with only one manufacturer for computers and appliances, and I 
don't think you want to be either. But if Microsoft isn't dealt with 
now, that's exactly what's going to happen in a few years.
    Consider this: if Microsoft really thought your settlement would 
hamper their anticompetitive efforts, would they be willing to sign 
it in the first place? Of course not-they think they've 
negotiated a way out, and you're going to give it to them if you go 
through with this settlement. And, remember what happened the last 
time a conduct remedy was levied. It was broadly ignored.
    Please, for the sake of the industry, IT workers, and end users 
in general, don't agree to a settlement. Pursue this case. Let 
history remember you as a DOJ that had grit, and followed through on 
your work, rather than as the DOJ that accepted a settlement with no 
teeth, allowing Microsoft to further hurt the U.S. IT industry.
    Thank you for your time,
    Philip Perry.



MTC-00016304

From: Vel Johnson
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Florida Should Support Free Enterprise and Settle with 
Microsoft.
    By Edwin H. Moore
    Participation in the Microsoft case by Florida's government has 
alays seemed a bit out of character for a state governed by 
conservative principles favoring free markets. Now when the 
prospects of settling this antifree market case are readily 
available, the attorney general of Florida appears unwilling to join 
the settlement agreed to by the U.S. Department of Justice. Florida 
should be a state that encourages innovation, exploartion, and 
progress, not one that acts a s a hindrance to these ideals.
    Slightly fewer than 200,000 Floridians are Microsoft 
shareholders. Millions more have benefited from the innovative line 
of products offered by this creative company. Microsoft has gained a 
dominant share of the software market because it is very good at 
what it does. Consumers enjoy their products and willingly buy them. 
Their products are user-friendly because Microsoft spends almost $4 
billion annually in research and development. Instead of standing in 
opposition to Microsoft, Florida should be seeking partnerships with 
a foward looking company, trying to attract it to spend some of its 
research and development funds in the state.
    Attorney General Bob Butterworth has been recognized as a man of 
trust and respect. He has accomplished this by staying the course on 
issues that are of great importance to Florida. In the Microsoft 
situation, it is hard to see where the greater interests of Florida 
are served by continuing to contest the case. Frankly, it could be 
easily argued that the settlement places too many restrictions by 
government on a company that seeks to expand into new markets, 
create jobs, develop new products, and serve the public. Moreover, 
Microsoft contributed about $7 million in charitable contriubtions 
to Florida in 2000. The other states that are also resisiting 
settlement here seem to be seeking radical remedies designed to be 
destructive.
    One has to wonder if the intent is to destroy success.
    Some states are served by attorneys general who seek to use this 
case to improve their public position, posing for cameras at every 
opportunity and doing more posing than policymaking in their 
approach to this issues. This has not been Butterworth's style. He 
has never pandered to the media and never appeared to grandstand. 
Even in this case he has remained low-key and studious. Now is the 
time for his refelction to determine that this case should be placed 
on the dust pile of history as a bad idea.
    The greatest threat of this case in the first plcace was that an 
overzealous, antifree market federal government under the former 
administration would go too far and force a major breakup of what 
many consider as one of the most innovative organizations in 
history.
    This scheme was rejected by the appellate court and, with a 
change in administrations, by the federal plaintiffs as well. The 
current agreement is acceptable because it serves the public's best 
interest. Microsoft is forced to disclose part of its code, is 
limited on how it relates to computer makers, and is forced to fund 
a technology oversight committee to oversee the settlement, responde 
to complaints, and report to the court. The head of the antitrust 
division of the U.S. Department of Justice has agreed that the 
public is well served by this agreement stating, ``The goals of 
the government were to obtain relief that stops Microsoft from 
engaging in unlowful conduct, prevent any recurrence of that conduct 
in the future, and restore competition in the software market. We 
have acheived these goals.''
    It is time for Florida to agree.
    Edwin H. Moore is president and CEO of the James Madison 
Institute in Tallahassee, a Florida based non partisian, noprofit 
research and educational organization.



MTC-00016305

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sending this email in reference to the US Gov't settlement 
of the Microsoft Antitrust case. My name is Daniel Juliano, and I 
live in Urbandale, Iowa. I am a Visual Basic programmer for an 
Insurance company here, which means I spend the bulk of my time 
programming computer application for various Microsoft environments.
    I am not happy with the settlement. It was proven that Microsoft 
is indeed a monopoly. It is my belief that the settlement will be 
unable to prevent Microsoft from continuing it's unfair business 
practices. Have a look at section ``IV. Compliance and 
Enforcement Procedures'' subsection ``A. Enforcement 
Authority'' in the final ruling. The first part reads:
    ``The Plaintiffs shall have exclusive responsibility for 
enforcing this Final Judgment. Without in any way limiting the 
sovereign enforcement authority of each of the plaintiff States, the 
plaintiff States shall form a committee to coordinate their 
enforcement of this Final Judgment. A plaintiff State shall take no 
action to enforce this Final Judgment without first consulting with 
the United States and with the plaintiff States'' enforcement 
committee.''
    And so on and so forth. The problem with enforcement is it all 
come down to the courts again. Which means Microsoft has the ability 
to dispute all claims of infraction, as well as drag out the 
punishment process. Microsoft loves the fact that it can take years 
in a courtroom to resolve an issue. By that time, the companies 
they've mauled have long since gone bankrupt. Can't you see that 
this is the reason the original antitrust lawsuit took so long in 
the first place?
    The only way to enforce the ruling against a monopoly is to 
break up the monopoly. The longer you wait, the more Microsoft will 
claim all of its parts are too closely knit with its operating 
system. Now is the US Gov't chance to strike, please don't let the 
taxpaying citizens (remember us, the ones who are paying for the 
trial?) down.
    Thanks,
    Daniel Juliano
    Programmer II



MTC-00016306

From: Grace Loggins
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
Microsoft to continue in its current anticompetitive behavior. It 
allows Microsoft to retaliate against OEM's who provide non-windows 
operating systems on new hardware. It allows anticompetitive 
licensing. It allows Microsoft to create intentional 
incompatibilities to maintain its monopoly hold on the desktop and 
applications. It should not be adopted without substantial revision 
to fix this.
    I am a developer who has worked in the computer industry for the 
last 11 years, programming on Windows and Unix.
    I am also a consumer who resents being forced to buy a Microsoft 
OS in order to buy new hardware.
    Grace Loggins
    800 John's Landing Way
    Lawrenceville, GA 30045



MTC-00016307

From: Michael O'Connell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this

[[Page 26231]]

settlement is counter to the interests of the American public, 
deleterious to the American economy, and not adequate given the 
findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Sincerely,
    Michael O'Connell
    123 West Cliff St.
    Somerville, NJ 08876
    1-908-722-3387
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016308

From: Trevor D. Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is NOT a good idea, as it is riddled 
with loopholes which a company such as Microsoft will clearly take 
advantage of.
    Be just, and fair. Don't let them dictate their punishment in a 
swiss cheesed proposal.
    Trevor D. Manning
    Using Debian GNU/Linux...
    and falling off DMR Bikes since 1998.



MTC-00016309

From: Andrew Sterian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment upon the proposed Microsoft settlement. 
I am disappointed at the proposed settlement and believe that it 
does not provide sufficient remedies to restore meaningful 
competition to the marketplace.
    I am an Assistant Professor of Engineering at Grand Valley State 
University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In the field of engineering, 
there are several important software tools that define the state-of-
the-art in engineering practice. The majority of these tools require 
the Microsoft Windows operating system. In effect, the future of 
American engineering depends upon Microsoft. This places the U.S.A. 
in a very precarious position.
    When our engineering department buys a new computer, we have no 
choice but to buy it pre-installed with the latest Microsoft 
operating system. By charging computer manufacturers for an 
operating system license for each computer sold, regardless of 
whether the computer actually has the operating system installed, 
the computer manufacturer faces extreme pressure to do as Microsoft 
says and pre-load the computer with the most recent release of the 
Microsoft Windows operating system. Previous versions of the 
operating system are simply not available. This is the cause of the 
``upgrade treadmill.'' Engineering software developers 
must spend considerable resources to upgrade their software for 
compatibility with the newest release of the Microsoft Windows 
operating system. Engineering departments and students must pay for 
the newest operating system version and for new versions of the 
software.
    This ``upgrade treadmill'' benefits no-one except 
Microsoft. The software developers must run fast just to keep up, 
purchasers of the software must upgrade to the latest version in 
order to maintain compatibility with the latest Microsoft operating 
system, and our higher education system, both the universities and 
the students, must pay for both the new operating system and the new 
version of the engineering software. There are simply no other 
options as long as Microsoft continues to force its upgrades on us.
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does nothing to break this 
cycle. Until engineering software developers have a choice of 
whether or not they must support the latest Microsoft operating 
system, this costly treadmill will continue, and the engineering 
skill and talent of Americans will become vulnerable to foreign 
competition and to the whims of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Sterian
    Assistant Professor
    Padnos School of Engineering
    Grand Valley State University
    
    
    (616) 771-6756



MTC-00016310

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an adcanced computer user and United States Citizen, I must 
dissent with the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft AntiTrust 
Settlement. The terms of the settlement are both too narrow (only 
citing 5 middleware components without regard to future 
implementations) and too short-sighted (addressing specific 
incarnations of the software and not the underlying practices of the 
Microsoft dynasty that makes fair competition nearly impossibl). 
This country has had the wool pulled over its eyes by so-called 
antitrust legislation before, in what amounted to pats on the head 
to the rabble-rousers who saw the corporations'' unfair 
practices for what they were. But in this information age, do not be 
fooled into thinking that we, the masses, can be placated by token 
gestures and empty, unenforced policies. Your responsibility lies 
not in satisfying the corporations, but in upholding the standards 
of the people of this country. We're watching- do not let us down.
    Kristen Maxwell
    Kris Maxwell
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016311

From: Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am severely disappointed with the ``Proposed Final 
Judgement'' (PFJ) in United States vs. Microsoft. I feel that 
Microsoft has had nearly complete control in crafting a document 
that is highly favorable to their position, and that it allows them 
nearly unrestrained activity as a penalty for their behavior.
    I would really like to see something that directly addresses 
Microsoft's monopolistic behavior against OEM's and other vendors. I 
would like to see tha the document allows (interesting use of the 
word in a free society) OEM's who sell computer systems the 
unrestrained ability to sell them in any configuration the buying 
public should choose. As it stands now, OEMs are still afraid to 
sell a computer system unless it meets with Microsoft's approval, 
that approval being the ability to sell their operating system at 
all.
    Please address this, and a host of other issues as you 
substantially revise the PFJ so that it is not a Microsoft-favorable 
document, but a document that favors the whole computer industry, 
and indeed, ourwhole society. Punish Microsoft appropriately (which, 
sadly, the PFJ does not do), and allow the rest of the computer 
industry to move ahead unrestrained. This is the most American thing 
we can do, to encourage freedom of choice, and allow our whole 
economy to progress, free of the stain of monopolistic restraint.
    Thank you for allowing me to express my feelings on the issue. 
-
    No one is completely useless. They can always serve as a bad 
example. - Dale L. Handy, P.E.
    [email protected]



MTC-00016312

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Having examined the proposed consent final judgment for USA 
versus Microsoft, we offer the following initial comments. We note 
at the outset that the decision to push for a rapid negotiation 
appears to have placed the Department of Justice at a disadvantage, 
given Microsoft's apparently willingness to let this matter drag on 
for years, through different USDOJ antitrust chiefs, Presidents and 
judges. The proposal is obviously limited in terms of effectiveness 
by the desire to obtain a final order that is agreeable to 
Microsoft.
    We are disappointed of course that the court has moved away from 
a structural remedy, which we believe would require less dependence 
upon future enforcement efforts and good faith by Microsoft, and 
which would jump start a more competitive market for applications. 
Within the limits of a conduct-only remedy, we make the following 
observations.

[[Page 26232]]

    On the positive side, we find the proposed final order addresses 
important areas where Microsoft has abused its monopoly power, 
particularly in terms of its OEM licensing practices and on the 
issue of using interoperability as a weapon against consumers of 
non-Microsoft products. There are, however, important areas where 
the interoperability remedies should be stronger. For example, there 
is a need to have broader disclosure of file formats for popular 
office productivity and multimedia applications. Moreover, where 
Microsoft appears be given broad discretion to deploy intellectual 
property claims to avoid opening up its monopoly operating system 
where it will be needed the most, in terms of new interfaces and 
technologies. Moreover, the agreement appears to give Microsoft too 
many opportunities to undermine the free software movement.
    We also find the agreement wanting in several other areas. It is 
astonishing that the agreement fails to provide any penalty for 
Microsoft's past misdeeds, creating both the sense that Microsoft is 
escaping punishment because of its extraordinary political and 
economic power, and undermining the value of antitrust penalties as 
a deterrent. Second, the agreement does not adequately address the 
concerns about Microsoft's failure to abide by the spirit or the 
letter of previous agreements, offering a weak oversight regime that 
suffers in several specific areas. Indeed, the proposed alternative 
dispute resolution for compliance with the agreement embraces many 
of the worst features of such systems, operating in secrecy, lacking 
independence, and open to undue influence from Microsoft.

OEM Licensing Remedies

    We were pleased that the proposed final order provides for non-
discriminatory licensing of Windows to OEMs, and that these remedies 
include multiple boot PCs, substitution of non-Microsoft middleware, 
changes in the management of visible icons and other issues. These 
remedies would have been more effective if they would have been 
extended to Microsoft Office, the other key component of Microsoft's 
monopoly power in the PC client software market, and if they 
permitted the removal of Microsoft products. But nonetheless, they 
are pro-competitive, and do represent real benefits to consumers.

Interoperability Remedies

    Microsoft regularly punishes consumers who buy non-Microsoft 
products, or who fail to upgrade and repurchase newer versions of 
Microsoft products, by designing Microsoft Windows or Office 
products to be incompatible or non-interoperable with competitor 
software, or even older versions of its own software. It is 
therefore good that the proposed final order would require Microsoft 
to address a wide range of interoperability remedies, including for 
example the disclosures of APIs for windows and Microsoft middleware 
products, non-discriminatory access to communications protocols used 
for services, and nondiscriminatory licensing of certain 
intellectual property rights for Microsoft middleware products. 
There are, however, many areas where these remedies may be limited 
by Microsoft, and as is indicated by the record in this case, 
Microsoft can and does take advantage of any loopholes in contracts 
to create barriers to competition and enhance and extend its 
monopoly power.

Special Concerns for Free Software Movement

    The provisions in J.1 and J.2. appear to give Microsoft too much 
flexibility in withholding information on security grounds, and to 
provide Microsoft with the power to set unrealistic burdens on a 
rival's legitimate rights to obtain interoperability data. More 
generally, the provisions in D. regarding the sharing of technical 
information permit Microsoft to choose secrecy and limited 
disclosures over more openness. In particular, these clauses and 
others in the agreement do not reflect an appreciation for the 
importance of new software development models, including those 
``open source'' or ``free'' software development 
models which are now widely recognized as providing an important 
safeguard against Microsoft monopoly power, and upon which the 
Internet depends.
    The overall acceptance of Microsoft's limits on the sharing of 
technical information to the broader public is an important and in 
our view core flaw in the proposed agreement. The agreement should 
require that this information be as freely available as possible, 
with a high burden on Microsoft to justify secrecy. Indeed, there is 
ample evidence that Microsoft is focused on strategies to cripple 
the free software movement, which it publicly considers an important 
competitive threat. This is particularly true for software developed 
under the GNU Public License (GPL), which is used in GNU/Linux, the 
most important rival to Microsoft in the server market. Consider, 
for example, comments earlier this year by Microsoft executive Jim 
Allchin: http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-4833927.html ``Microsoft exec 
calls open source a threat to innovation,'' Bloomberg News, 
February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT One of Microsoft's high-level 
executives says that freely distributed software code such as Linux 
could stifle innovation and that legislators need to understand the 
threat. The result will be the demise of both intellectual property 
rights and the incentive to spend on research and development, 
Microsoft Windows operating-system chief Jim Allchin said this week.
    Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while 
discussing protection of intellectual property rights ...
    ``Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' 
Allchin said. ``I can't imagine something that could be worse 
than this for the software business and the intellectual-property 
business.'' ... In a June 1, 2001 interview with the Chicago 
Sun Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer again complained about the 
GNU/Linux business model, saying ``Linux is a cancer that 
attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it 
touches. That's the way that the license works,'' 1 leading to 
a round of new stories, including for example this account in 
CNET.Com: http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-6291224.html
    ``Why Microsoft is wary of open source: Joe Wilcox and 
Stephen Shankland in CNET.com, June 18, 2001.
    There's more to Microsoft's recent attacks on the open-source 
movement than mere rhetoric:
    Linux's popularity could hinder the software giant in its quest 
to gain control of a server market that's crucial to its long-term 
goals
    Recent public statements by Microsoft executives have cast Linux 
and the open-source philosophy that underlies it as, at the minimum, 
bad for competition, and, at worst, a ``cancer'' to 
everything it touches.
    Behind the war of words, analysts say, is evidence that 
Microsoft is increasingly concerned about Linux and its growing 
popularity. The Unix-like operating system ``has clearly 
emerged as the spoiler that will prevent Microsoft from achieving a 
dominant position'' in the worldwide server operating-system 
market, IDC analyst A1 Gillen concludes in a forthcoming report.
    ... While Linux hasn't displaced Windows, it has made serious 
inroads... ] .. In attacking Linux and open source, Microsoft finds 
itself competing ``not against another company, but against a 
grassroots movement,'' said Paul Dain, director of application 
development at Emeryville, Calif.-based Wirestone, a technology 
services company.
    ... Microsoft has also criticized the General Public License 
(GPL) that governs the heart of Linux. Under this license, changes 
to the Linux core, or kernel, must also be governed by the GPL. The 
license means that if a company changes the kernel, it must publish 
the changes and can't keep them proprietary if it plans to 
distribute the code externally...
    Microsoft's open-source attacks come at a time when the company 
has been putting the pricing squeeze on customers. In early May, 
Microsoft revamped software licensing, raising upgrades between 33 
percent and 107 percent, according to Gartner. A large percentage of 
Microsoft business customers could in fact be compelled to upgrade 
to Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a heftier purchase price later on.
    The action ``will encourage-`force' may 
be a more accurate term-customers to upgrade much sooner than 
they had otherwise planned,'' Gillen noted in the IDC report. 
``Once the honeymoon period runs out in October 2001, the only 
way to `upgrade' from a product that is not considered 
to be current technology is to buy a brand-new full 
license.'''
    This could make open-source Linux's GPL more attractive to some 
customers feeling trapped by the price hike, Gillen said. 
``Offering this form of `upgrade protection'' may 
motivate some users to seriously consider alternatives to Microsoft 
technology.'' . . .
    What is surprising is that the US Department of Justice allowed 
Microsoft to place so many provisions in the agreement that can be 
used to undermine the free software movement. Note for example that 
under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can 
withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds 
that Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity and 
viability of its business,'' while at the

[[Page 26233]]

same time it is describing the licensing system for Linux as a 
``cancer'' that threatens the demise of both the 
intellectual property rights system and the future of research and 
development.
    The agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set of strategies 
to undermine the development of free software, which depends upon 
the free sharing of technical information with the general public, 
taking advantage of the collective intelligence of users of 
software, who share ideas on improvements in the code. If Microsoft 
can tightly control access to technical information under a court 
approved plan, or charge fees, and use its monopoly power over the 
client space to migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it will 
harm the development of key alternatives, and lead to a less 
contestable and less competitive platform, with more consumer lock-
in, and more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues to hike up its 
prices for its monopoly products.

Problems with the term and the enforcement mechanism

    Another core concern with the proposed final order concerns the 
term of the agreement and the enforcement mechanisms. We believe a 
five-to-seven year term is artificially brief, considering that this 
case has already been litigated in one form or another since 1994, 
and the fact that Microsoft's dominance in the client OS market is 
stronger today than it has ever been, and it has yet to face a 
significant competitive threat in the client OS market. An 
artificial end will give Microsoft yet another incentive to delay, 
meeting each new problem with an endless round of evasions and 
creative methods of circumventing the pro-competitive aspects of the 
agreement. Only if Microsoft believes it will have to come to terms 
with its obligations will it modify its strategy of anticompetitive 
abuses.
    Even within the brief period of the term of the agreement, 
Microsoft has too much room to co-opt the enforcement effort. 
Microsoft, despite having been found to be a law breaker by the 
courts, is given the right to select one member of the three members 
of the Technical Committee, who in turn gets a voice in selecting 
the third member. The committee is gagged, and sworn to secrecy, 
denying the public any information on Microsoft's compliance with 
the agreement, and will be paid by Microsoft, working inside 
Microsoft's headquarters. The public won't know if this committee 
spends its time playing golf with Microsoft executives, or 
investigating Microsoft's anticompetitive activities. Its ability to 
interview Microsoft employees will be extremely limited by the 
provisions that give Microsoft the opportunity to insist on having 
its lawyers present. One would be hard pressed to imagine an 
enforcement mechanism that would do less to make Microsoft 
accountable, which is probably why Microsoft has accepted its terms 
of reference.
    In its 1984 agreement with the European Commission, IBM was 
required to affirmatively resolve compatibility issues raised by its 
competitors, and the EC staff had annual meetings with IBM to review 
its progress in resolve disputes. The EC reserved the right to 
revisit its enforcement action on IBM if it was not satisfied with 
IBM's conduct.
    The court could require that the Department of Justice itself or 
some truly independent parties appoint the members of the TC, and 
give the TC real investigative powers, take them off Microsoft's 
payroll, and give them staff and the authority to inform the public 
of progress in resolving compliance problems, including for example 
an annual report that could include information on past complaints, 
as well as suggestions for modifications of the order that may be 
warranted by Microsoft's conduct. The TC could be given real 
enforcement powers, such as the power to levy fines on Microsoft. 
The level of fines that would serve as a deterrent for cash rich 
Microsoft would be difficult to fathom, but one might make these 
fines deter more by directing the money to be paid into trust funds 
that would fund the development of free software, an endeavor that 
Microsoft has indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its own 
monopoly. This would give Microsoft a much greater incentive to 
abide by the agreement.

Failure to address Ill Gotten Gains

    Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything 
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an 
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is hardly a first time 
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct, choosing 
instead to repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers 
of the government and members of the judiciary. Microsoft has 
profited richly from the maintenance of its monopoly. On September 
30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short-term investments of 
$36.2 billion, up from $31.6 billion the previous quarter-an 
accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per month.
    It is astounding that Microsoft would face only a ``sin no 
more'' edict from a court, after its long and tortured history 
of evasion of antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary embrace of 
anticompetitive practices-practices recognized as illegal by 
all members of the DC Circuit court. The court has a wide range of 
options that would address the most egregious of Microsoft's past 
misdeeds. For example, even if the court decided to forgo the break-
up of the Windows and Office parts of the company, it could require 
more targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of its browser 
technology and media player technologies, denying Microsoft the 
fruits of its illegal conduct, and it could require affirmative 
support for rival middleware products that it illegally acted to 
sabotage. Instead the proposed order permits Microsoft to 
consolidate the benefits from past misdeeds, while preparing for a 
weak oversight body tasked with monitoring future misdeeds only. 
What kind of a signal does this send to the public and to other 
large corporate law breakers? That economic crimes pay!
    Please consider these and other criticisms of the settlement 
proposal, and avoid if possible yet another weak ending to a 
Microsoft antitrust case. Better to send this unchastened monopoly 
juggernaut a sterner message.



MTC-00016313

From: Amy Enders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't let Microsoft continue to rule over the U.S. 
Government and the buying public.



MTC-00016314

From: James Miskiewicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give comment on the Microsoft Settlement as per 
the Tunney Act. I am a systems manager at a publishing company, and 
I use and recommend software on a daily basis.
    I do not feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement will have a 
positive effect on the American economy, because the settlement 
leaves many areas where Microsoft can get around the restrictions. I 
feel that the settlement, in its current form, will actually more 
deeply entrench Microsoft as a monopoly that cannot be shaken, 
because they will know exactly how to get around the proposed 
restrictions. As shown with the collapse of Enron, a monopoly does 
not only hurt competition but can have disastrous effects on the 
economy as a whole.
    Particularly, Microsoft needs to release information pertaining 
to the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) used in all 
Microsoft products, including any operating system that can execute 
Windows-based code (this includes Microsoft Windows 95, 98, 2000, 
XP, CE, XP Tablet Edition, X-Box and Pocket PC) with sufficient time 
for competitors to re-engineer their programs to be interoperatible 
with those Microsoft products.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause everyone to suffer, by 
hindering growth and innovation in the rapidly changing (and 
generally very competitive) technology industry. The findings of 
fact, which confirmed Microsoft is a monopoly, need strict measures 
to remedy their past abuses and prevent those practices from 
continuing into the future.
    Thank you for your time,
    James Miskiewicz
    800 Kimberton Rd., Apt. B4
    Phoenixville, PA 19460



MTC-00016315

From: Erich Bratton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is BAD
    Microsoft broke the law and continues to break the law, as has 
been ruled. The current settlement does NOT force Microsoft to open 
its API to any and all comers. This is unacceptable and a mere slap 
on the wrist, versus the full punishment that an aggressive monopoly 
company that flaunts the law deserves.
    Erich Bratton

[[Page 26234]]



MTC-00016316

From: Jeff Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to register my opposition to the Proposed 
Settlement. Microsoft has been found guilty of anti-competitive 
practices, which were upheld on appeal. The Settlement does not 
prevent Microsoft from continuing these anti-competitive practices.
    Thank you,
    Jeff Jennings
    Advisory Firmware Engineer,
    Benchmark Storage Innovations
    Boulder, Colorado



MTC-00016317

From: David Haas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. I would like to comment on a problem I see with the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    The remedies of the proposed settlement are specifically geared 
to protect commercial organizations-companies in business to 
make a profit. However, Microsoft has stated that their biggest 
threats come not from competing companies, but from Open Source 
initiatives such as the Apache web server or the Samba file & 
print sharing server.
    This proposed settlement provides no protection whatsoever to 
these initiatives. In fact, Section III(J)(2) specifically states 
that Microsoft need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or 
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization 
to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business. 
Section III(D) of the settlement also limits knowledge of API's for 
incorporating non-Microsoft ``middleware'' (such as web or 
file servers) to only commercial entities-not open, non-profit 
initiatives such as Apache or Samba. Any settlement which doesn't 
prevent Microsoft from arbitrarily changing protocols or API's on 
its Windows platform to shut out such open initiatives would be a 
terrible mistake. Microsoft has been found guilty of unfairly using 
its monopoly in operating systems to extend into other areas and 
lock competition out. Any settlement with the company should ensure 
this practice doesn't continue.
    Thank you.
    David Haas
    Graduate Student
    University of Wisconsin-Chemical Engineering
    1415 Engineering Dr.
    Madison, WI 53706
    (608) 262-1090
    Fax: (608) 262-5434



MTC-00016318

From: Patrick Gearman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Under the provisions of the Tunney Act, public opinion on 
proposed settlements can be considered by the court. Therefore, 
again under the provisions of the Tunney Act, I am sending the 
following comments to be considered by the court.
    I feel that the current proposed settlement against Microsoft is 
not in the public's interest. Among my issues with the Revised 
Proposed Settlement are the following:
    1) Section IV: Compliance and Settlement Practices, Part C: 
Appointment of a Microsoft Internal Compliance Officer. I feel that 
the Microsoft Compliance Officer should not be a person designated 
by Microsoft, and not an employee. Microsoft has shown a pattern of 
action that has demonstrated that they will lie when it is their 
best interest. The testimony during the initial trial by Microsoft 
corporate officers, especially regarding the supposed 
interdependency of the Windows OS and the Internet Explorer web 
browser was shown to be falsified. Because of this, and other 
reasons, I personally feel that Microsoft will not hold to the 
proposed settlement with regards to this position.
    2) Section V: Termination, Part A: The length of the settlement, 
at five years, prior to any extension ordered by the court, in my 
opinion, is too short. Given the position that Microsoft is in, as 
regards the desktop OS market share, five years is not long enough, 
in my opinion, to be enough of a timespan in order to ensure 
Microsoft complies fully with the ordered settlement.
    3) Section III: Prohibited Conduct, Part J: The proposed 
settlement does not require Microsoft to document, disclose, or 
license any of their APIs, 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.
    This portion allows Microsoft to continue to ``cut out the 
middle-man'' by continuing to obfuscate their code, make it 
more difficult for other software makers to create programs that 
work with the Windows OS, and hide security flaws with their OS 
software, as they have already done in the past. It is not in the 
public's best interest for this to continue, and I believe that a 
harsher punishment is required in order to effectively curtail 
Microsoft's previous behavior.
    Patrick Gearman
    1230 Pendleton Street, Apt. 14-D
    Columbia, SC 29201



MTC-00016319

From: John Kehoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement as it stands does nothing remedy the 
actions of Microsoft, which has been found guilty of being a 
monopolist. The high tech field is an important arena for the US to 
be competitive is we are going to retain our economic and political 
power. Microsoft has been found guilty of hindering the innovation 
the US needs to survive in this area.
    The proposed settlement will continue the status quo and puts 
the United States at risk.
    Regards,
    John Kehoe



MTC-00016320

From: Trey Merrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea .



MTC-00016321

From: Jesse DeFer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I find it distributing that the settlement makes no mention of 
file format problems. Microsoft continually changes it's file 
formats causing incompatibility within it's own products and other's 
products. They do not publish specifications of their file format so 
that others can write software which can work with them. This forces 
users to buy Microsoft products even though they may not want to, or 
cannot afford to buy a modern computer or all of the Microsoft 
software they will have to buy. Simple releasing specifications of 
their file formats would allow others to write competing software 
which would encourage innovation, and improve the computing 
experience for many people.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jesse DeFer
    Concerned Citizen



MTC-00016322

From: Dr. David Milner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I feel that the proposed remedies in the Microsoft antitrust 
case are not sufficient.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. David Milner



MTC-00016323

From: Mark Histed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed by the US Department of Justice in the 
civil anti-trust action they have brought against Microsoft is badly 
flawed. This remedy does nothing to prevent Microsoft from 
leveraging its monopoly on operating system software to give the 
company's other software a (large) advantage over its competitors.
    The Department of Justice has an obligation to enforce effective 
remedies with respect to Judge Jackson's findings of fact as 
affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. At the very 
least, they should:
    a) allow OEM's to bundle whichever software they like with 
Windows and b) prevent Microsoft from changing features of Windows 
to promote their own application software or middleware to extend 
their illegal monopoly.
    Let me draw an analogy. Imagine that the government left the 
building of the interstate highway system up to private enterprise. 
For a while, many different companies built different kinds of roads 
and different kinds of cars that could run on those roads.

[[Page 26235]]

(Imagine that some roads had different kinds of grooves that only 
certain tires could fit into.) Over time, a dominant kind of road 
emerged. Many companies built cars that would run on those roads and 
not others. Therefore, one type of road, built by one type of 
company, became dominant.
    This is analogous to what happened in the computer industry in 
the 80s and early 90s. Many OS's existed, but eventually Microsoft's 
OS became dominant. There is one key difference, however. Microsoft 
could roll out a new version of its OS every two or three years, and 
people would quickly upgrade! This is equivalent to the road company 
being able to build roads so quickly that they could replace all the 
roads in the US every two or three years. Now imagine this road-
building company started building cars. Of course, it would design 
the roads so that they would work best with its cars, and so that 
they would make other competitors'' cars run more slowly. Their 
cars would enjoy a huge competitive advantage.
    This is roughly equivalent to the situation in the desktop 
computer software market today. Except things are even worse! (This 
is due to the speed and ease with which software can be 
distributed.) Netscape once made the best ``browser'' 
cars, for free, but you had to pick them up at its store (by 
downloading it). Microsoft starting parking free browser cars all 
over the roads right up in front of people's driveways. Why would 
anyone want to go pick up a ``browser'' from Netscape when 
another one from Microsoft was right there at hand? Netscape tried 
to park its ``browser cars'' on to the roads, too, but 
Microsoft prevented them from doing that. (By preventing OEM's from 
bunding Netscape with Windows.)
    Was that a huge advantage? Yes.
    Will Microsoft be prevented from doing that in the future by the 
proposed remedy? No.
    For example, Microsoft is still allowed to prohibit OEMs from 
changing Windows at all-they can still park their free cars 
right in front of every house. Why would anyone use any other car?
    The best remedy in this case would be a market-based one-a 
capitalistic remedy that separates two different companies from each 
other so that they can compete rather than collude. In short, that 
would be Judge Jackson's proposed remedy.
    Thanks for reading this.
    I can be contacted at the address below.
    Mark Histed
    PhD student, MIT
    [email protected]
    US Mail:
    MIT, E25-236
    Cambridge, MA 02139



MTC-00016324

From: David D. Latham 01
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I wanted to give my opinion to the court about the proposed 
Microsoft settlement, under the Tunney Act.
    I do not believe the settlement to be a good resolution of the 
case. I do not think it will act as a deterrent for Microsoft to not 
abuse its power again. I think that if Microsoft knew this would be 
the punishment for its crime of abusing its monopoly position, that 
they would not hesitate to do it again, because they gained much 
more by doing so than they will lose in this settlement. I think 
that in order to allow competitors to compete, Microsoft should be 
required to open and document all of the APIs used to communicate 
between their programs as well as the document formats those 
programs use. This would allow there to be competing programs which 
would interoperate with Microsoft programs and provide a fair 
mechanism for competition. I would be disappointed with anything 
short of this.
    Sincerely,
    David D. Latham
    U.S. Citizen
    [email protected]
    3125 Wisconsin St.
    Oakland, CA 94602



MTC-00016325

From: Steve Damer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is ridiculous. Microsoft abused 
their monopoly, and it paid off for them. The only way to stop them 
from doing it again is to either make them incapable of doing it 
again (and I don't mean just make them promise to stop), or to 
punish them so severely that they regret having done it. The 
proposed settlement doesn't make it impossible for them to do it 
again (all they have to do is break their promise, and we know 
they're willing to do that), and it doesn't punish them particularly 
harshly. I think a much more appropriate punishment would be to 
require them to publish the Windows API (with further sanctions if 
someone discovers a discrepancy between what they publish and what 
the API does). This would strongly reduce their ability to use their 
operating system monopoly to gain an unfair edge in the sale of 
other types of software.
    Steve



MTC-00016326

From: Thomas Dyar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a concerned citizen, university student, and professional 
software engineer, I believe the proposed settlement between the 
collective states and Microsoft, Inc. is a bad idea. Although it 
does seem to address some issues effectively, more emphasis needs to 
be placed on counterweights that will likely ensure Microsoft's 
future behavior abides by legal norms and that the goals of a 
``healthy'' software market are achieved.
    For example, Microsoft is known for its strategy of 
``embrace and extend'', very recently exhibited in its 
employment of the industry-standard kerberos open source 
authentication protocol within its products. Rather than just 
``playing along'' with established standards which have 
only solidified through many years of work by a wide range of 
volunteers, university researchers, and individuals at private 
corporations, Microsoft ``extended'' the kerberos protocol 
so that Microsoft-kerberos is slightly different from everybody 
else's kerberos. Just so nobody is confused about the likely 
ultimate goal Microsoft was pursuing with this modification, the 
changes made were kept under Microsoft-held copyright, and make 
interoperability without Microsoft approval impossible.
    In order to prevent this ``tinkering'' to inhibit 
ongoing open source work, the settlement should require that 
Microsoft publish and license ALL API's on a non-discriminatory 
basis so free access to these API's and standards is available to 
both Microsoft employees and the open source community. Currently, 
the settlement only specifies these API's be 
``disclosed''. Compulsory licensing will allow the open 
source community to implement alternative versions of the published 
Microsoft API's and go much farther towards a ``level playing 
field''.
    Thank you for your consideration of my remarks,
    Thomas Dyar



MTC-00016327

From: Dane Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As both a US citizen and a Software Engineer, I feel it 
important to express my concern over the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case. I have so many problems with and concerns about it 
that I don't know where to begin.
    Let me just say that, if this settlement is accepted, Microsoft, 
which has been shown in court to be guilty of illegally maintaining 
a monopoly, will neither be punished for it's past behavior nor will 
it be realistically kept from similar behavior in the future. The 
proposed remedy will at best perpetuate the status quo, and at worst 
actually enhance some of Microsoft's tactics.
    In short, the proposed settlement is little more than a travesty 
of justice and I find it disagreeable in the strongest of terms. I 
expect more from my government.
    Thank you for your time. -
    Dane [email protected]://
www.visi.com/danger/
    ``You ALMOST got away with it, too, but for ONE THING: EVIL 
isn't ISO 9000 certified!!!''-Lisa Higgins



MTC-00016328

From: Elliott Gorelick
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. The original DOJ consent 
decree failed. The proposed settlement would fail for the same 
reasons. In my opinion, MS perjured themselves during the trial so 
they are not going to honestly police themselves.
    Elliott Gorelick



MTC-00016329

From: Owen Evans (Technology Services)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''

[[Page 26236]]

Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the MS settlement amounts to little more than a joke and 
a shameless cave-in to corporate whim. Thanks for allowing Microsoft 
to force its shoddy products on us for a little longer.



MTC-00016330

From: Alan M. Overton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't have anything more to add than has been published in 
numerous documents before, but I want to add my voice to the many 
who believe that Microsoft's ongoing anti- competitive practices 
have injured the general public through the reduction of the number 
of software solutions available to meet their innumerably varied 
needs.
    Alan M. Overton
    Center for Rehabilitation Technology
    Georgia Institute of Technology



MTC-00016331

From: Nathan Willis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my comments to the Tunney Act ``public 
input'' regarding the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
case. I am unhappy with the settlement in its current form. The 
remedies proposed contain loopholes, and to assume that they will 
not be exercised by Microsoft to the detriment of their competitors 
is naive, turning a blind eye both to the evidence of Microsoft's 
prior behavior and to their behavior in response to the previous 
settlement.
    I would favor a settlement that imposed strict separation of 
Microsoft's products (``unbundling''), without exception. 
The settlement before the Court now does not do this in any 
meaningful, enforceable way.
    Sincerely,
    Nate Willis
    nathan.p.willis
    [email protected]
    IM nick: n8willis



MTC-00016332

From: Christensen, Carl M.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to publicly comment on my relief that this case is 
resolved and that the government will not further persecute 
Microsoft.
    I publicly support Microsoft. I think that many of the details 
of this cased demonstrate not illegal practices but rather 
differences in IDEOLOGY. Too many people think that their 
ideological view is grounds to destroy one of the most successful US 
companies ... especially during an economic downturn now!



MTC-00016333

From: Ed Starback
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in regards to the Microsoft anti-trust settlement. 
It is ineffective at best. The process of litigation did more to 
deter there monopolistic practices than this settlement will. 
Stronger measures need to be put in place to ensure a competitive 
environment. The fact that they are a repeat offender should also be 
taken into account. They will see the current settlement as just the 
price of doing business, and they will continue in their 
monopolistic ways. Since it will be harder to sue them after this 
settlement goes into effect, they will probably become even more 
predatory. A more effective settlement will increase competition, 
resulting in lower prices and better software, which is to the 
benefit of everyone.
    Thank You
    Edward Starback



MTC-00016334

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not satisfied with the current settlement. I have read 
multiple essays, both for and against the current proposal and I 
have read the proposal. I appreciate the government's desire to 
regulate unfair business practices, and typically I am one to favor 
minimal governmental involvement. However, I do not believe that the 
current settlement adequately addresses the situation. Primarily, 
Microsoft is left with too much power to keep its competitors from 
competing. Not as much in the OS department, but specifically in the 
middleware (components for the OS) department. By having the freedom 
to change critical API's and not disclose them until the last major 
beta release, and not having to release some API's that their own 
products have full access to, creates an environment that would 
competition difficult, and in some circumstances untenable.
    I appreciate your consideration of this matter.
    Charles Churchill II
    Durham, NC
    [email protected]



MTC-00016335

From: Lightning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ and the US government should put a stop to Microsoft's 
monopolistic actions. The current proposal is not sufficient to stop 
Microsoft's actions and is being sent around as a victory due to 
many loopholes.
    Microsoft has not changed their actions much since the trial 
started. They have continued their actions, even being allowed to 
release XP which contains so many things built into XP that they can 
effectively wipe out their competition due to no one needing to go 
search the net for a movie player, chat program, or other 
applications that are much better than Microsoft's version. Normal 
computer users use what the computer comes with. This means that 
Microsoft can continue being a monopoly until someone else grows 
larger but Microsoft makes that impossible by making it extremely 
difficult for anyone, other than
    Microsoft, to talk and interface with the OS from another OS. 
The same is true for their applications. Microsoft needs to be 
forced to release all protocols and file formats. There is no reason 
for them not to release a protocol due to security. Such an entry in 
the proposal means that they can implement security into all 
protocols then not release any. If an operating system is designed 
well, then at least the protocols and file formats it uses can be 
released without worry about security as it will still exist. 
Microsoft is continueing to be a monopoly and has so many loopholes 
in the current proposal that they don't have to change at all. 
Proposals do not have to be complicated. The more complicated, the 
easier to find and use a loophole. If the government can not stop 
Microsoft from what they are doing, who will?
    Samuel Seay



MTC-00016336

From: Jason M. Felice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement As a consultant and business owner in 
Cronosys, LLC (http://www.cronosys.com/),
    I have taken a keen interest in the Microsoft Anti-trust case. 
As well as reading most of the news reporting of the subject, I've 
read most of the court transcripts.
    As consultants, our business is multi-faceted, one of the things 
that we do is install Linux Internet servers. Over the years we have 
had numerous problems with clients'' forced upgrades suddenly 
preventing communications from the client machine to one of our 
servers (I'm speaking of all different kinds of servers, not just 
one particular package-mail servers, file servers, web 
servers, LDAP servers). A lot of times this is because Microsoft has 
bent or broken the open standards on which the Internet was built 
for its own short-sighted gains.
    The current settlement does nothing to remedy this. In fact, 
most of the restrictions mentioned in the settlement, in my personal 
opinion, will be obsolete shortly after such a settlement agreement 
is signed-Microsoft is already poised to make it so. With .NET 
Microsoft can move all of the offending APIs out of the operating 
system and into a pay-per-use service provider. With the XBox (which 
the settlement as I interpret it seems to ignore) poised to invade 
the living room, and then replace set-top boxes, then replace most 
families'' Internet access-couple this with .NET and they 
have technologically completely avoided any anti-trust remedy but 
still avoided any competition.
    The best proposal I have heard comes from Richard Stallman, 
summarized here, but the full text is available at:
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between software componenets, all communications 
protocols, and all file formats. 1a) Prevent Microsoft from using 
non-disclosure agreements.
    2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only.
    3. Require Microsoft to not certify any hardware as working with 
Microsoft

[[Page 26237]]

 software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been 
published.
    Jason M. Felice
    Consultant and Business Owner,
    Cronosys, LLC
    14701 Detroit Avenue
    Lakewood, Ohio 44107



MTC-00016337

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a really bad idea.
    C. Papachristou
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016338

From: Don ``Duck'' Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the current proposed settlement does nothing to 
discourage Microsoft from its core business pratices of flexing 
monolopy powers to stiffle free competention in the area of 
commercial computer operating systems, web browsers, and the new 
market of cusumer-driven multimedia.
    Thank you,
    Donald Harper,
    Information Director, Medical Present Value, Inc.
    Austin, TX
    Don Harper, RHCE, MCSE
    DoD #0520 email:
    [email protected]
    http://www.duckland.org



MTC-00016339

From: Sheilagh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing as a concerned citizen and will copy this email to 
paper and US mail as appropriate.
    I would like to see Microsoft admit to understanding of the 
letter of the law, or at least pay some damages. Their size may well 
have contributed to current economic issues, and here in Austin, TX, 
it sure would be nice to have the software market opened up again. 
That is, it would be most beneficial to have Microsoft held to open 
more of its resources to other software creators, working more 
cooperatively with open-source developers.
    Rather than make a comprehensive answer in this message, I will 
hope that others add other details, and simply use this message as a 
``vote'' to be cast in favor of requiring Microsoft to 
work more cooperatively with other companies.
    thanks,
    Sheilagh O'Hare



MTC-00016340

From: Francois Cote
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (against)
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and FAR 
from adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of structures AND 
punishments must be placed on convicted monopolists to insure that 
1) they are unable to continue their illegal activities and pay for 
past transgressions to the full extent of the law. I do not think 
that the proposed settlement is strong enough to serve either of 
these functions.
    Thank you for your patience
    Francisco



MTC-00016341

From: Tuinstra, Aaron
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it ma concern,
    I'm a systems administrator for a large corporation.
    Daily I have to deal with the poor quality software provided by 
Microsoft. I feel that users both personal and corporation disserve 
a better product.
    The Security is also very poor in their systems. By giving 
Microsoft a option to put More PC's in schools only advances their 
market share more!
    Please, do something about this problem, I feel that our economy 
is stagnate because of the time and money corporations spend on 
fixing Microsoft's problems.
    Aaron Tuinstra
    Midnight Software
    N11546 Old us 41 RD
    Daggett, MI 49821



MTC-00016342

From: John Koetsier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/23 11:00am
Subject: This Microsoft Settlement Is Bad
    The Microsoft settlement is bad for consumers, bad for business, 
and bad for government.
    The slap on the wrist so far extracted from Microsoft in no way 
compensates for the many and serious harms this company has caused 
to companies such as Netscape, Apple, innumerable others, and 
consumers all over the United States and beyond.
    Also, any settlement by which Microsoft simply has to distribute 
MORE of its products in the marketplace ... one of the very problems 
that occasioned this entire legal battle ... is simply too ludicrous 
to credit. A proper settlement would be paying for installations of 
competing products such as Linux servers and Macintosh computers. 
Microsoft argues that the US economy would suffer if it was 
restrained.
    The opposite is true. Rid the marketplace of Microsoft's 
stranglehold, and you will see a flowering of creativity, 
investment, start-ups, and ideas the like of which we haven't seen 
since the glory days of the dot-coms. This renaissance, however, 
would have a chance to take root and flower.
    john koetsier



MTC-00016343

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does very little to prevent Microsoft 
from future infractions of antitrust law. Additionally, MS has 
benefitted monetarily as a result of their practices and this 
settlement does little to enforce any sort of compensation to those 
companies and individuals that have sufferedas a result (Netscape, 
for example has been all but stifled out of the 
market-theyhave received no compensation for MS's 
anticompetitive practices).
    Curtis Judd
    10511 E Eleanor Maldonado Pl
    Tucson, AZ 85747



MTC-00016344

From: Eric Aitala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    HI,
    I believe that the Mircosoft settlement was just a slap on the 
wrist. They should have a far more severe penalty imposed.
    The company has practiced predatory business tactics for far too 
long and should be stopped..
    Eric Aitala
    Eric Aitala-University Webmaster
    [email protected]://www.olemiss.edu/depts/it/
webmaster
    321 Powers Hall 662-915-7822



MTC-00016345

From: Robb Greathouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is unfair. Microsoft has used its monopoly power 
to destroy competitors and has set back the field of computing 
years.
    I am on a project that used XML. We have found that integrating 
with Wordperfect and all other wordprocessing programs has only 
taken a fourth of the time that integrating with Microsoft's word 
product. The product is built to make it deliberately difficult to 
integrate with it. This makes it difficult for competing products to 
provide Word compatibility.
    I believe that Windows should be put in the public domain and 
that Microsoft should be barred from further purchases.
    Robb Greathouse.



MTC-00016346

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00am

[[Page 26238]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and gentlemen,
    I followed the Microsoft anti-trust case in newspaper accounts 
as it wound its way through the legal system. I thought that Judge 
Penfield did a good job of arbitrating the interests of justice in 
this case-to me it was clear that Microsoft is a predatory 
monopoly, always pushing to find the absolute maximum line of 
profit, regardless of ethics or the interest of the public. They 
have sought to achieve dominance in every aspect of the high-tech 
world, and their sheer size guarantees that other more innovative 
players get coerced or shoved aside.
    I believe that the only just resolution to this case would have 
been to break Microsoft into two companies- an operating 
system company, and an applications company. I am also particularly 
outraged that one of the ``remedys'' proposed is to have 
Microsoft donate a large chunk of product to the school system. That 
comes from the school of ``Well, if you gotta pay, you might as 
well pay in a way that hurts your competitors more.'' I urge 
the Department of Justice to take a hard line on
    Microsoft.
    Kurt Liebezeit



MTC-00016347

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing today to express my disapproval of the current 
settlement against Microsoft.
    I have read through the settlements, and I feel it is not 
effective in reducing the monopolistic actions of Microsoft, nor is 
it effective in encouraging competition.
    I beleive that a stronger and stricter settlement is in order to 
prevent this monopoly from perpetuating.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Yee



MTC-00016348

From: Craig Van Degrift
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    I have used computers since 1961 and owned them since 1978. It 
is with great frustration that I watched excellent software and 
innovations be destroyed by Microsoft's strongarm tactics.
    Their forcing of IBM to stop supporting OS/2 was especially 
painful as I had been using OS/2 for 6 years and had written a 
Japanese-English Electronic Dictionary program for OS/2. OS/2 was an 
excellent operating system, far superior to any offering from 
Microsoft at the time.
    I now teach computer programming languages and the Linux 
operating system at Los Angeles City College Community Services. 
Much effort is expended working around Microsoft's secret or deviant 
protocols.
    The greatest exercise of their monopoly position, however, is 
with computer hardware manufacturers. It is extremely difficult for 
competing operating systems to gain market share when the 
manufacturers are strong armed by Microsoft licenses.
    Capitalism does not work when there are monopolies and Microsoft 
is most certainly a monopoly that must be broken up. It must be 
forced to obey published industry standard interfaces. It must be 
prevented from using its monopoly power against hardware 
manufacturers. It must be prevented from selling both an operating 
system and the applications that interface with it. A monopoly in 
the computer industry moves too fast to be treated with the same 
process as Standard Oil a century ago.
    Craig Van Degrift
    Kanji-Flash Softworks
    2121 Redrock Court
    Los Angeles, California 90039-3549



MTC-00016349

From: John Helms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I write today to express my concern for the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft/DOJ anti-trust case. The settlement reached by the 
DOJ and Microsoft is FAR short of the goal of addressing Microsoft's 
abuses in the marketplace.
    Please readdress this matter and include not only tougher 
sanctions against Microsoft, but actually punish them for their 
abuses against this nations consumers and other companies.
    Until Microsoft is brought under control, we consumers will see 
continuing reduction in choice and steady increases in price for 
Windows based software. I also write from the unique viewpoint of a 
Linux user. Because of Microsoft's dominant monopoly position in the 
market, I find it incredibly hard to use my chosen system in a 
productive manner. Without government intervention I will find 
myself facing a steady barrage of Microsoft's proprietary file 
formats (.doc, .xls, polluted java, C#, MS XML, etc) that 
require the use of Microsoft products. As well, in the hardware 
arena it becomes increasingly difficult to find devices that have 
device drivers that work in my chosen operating system, even though 
my OS runs on exactly the same .x86 platform.
    This settlement should require the following of Microsoft:
    1. Force them to open their proprietary file formats used in MS 
Office, Internet Explorer, and Outlook, Outlook Express and 
Exchange.
    2. Create a watchdog group that keep track of Microsoft's 
attempts at further efforts to ``lock'' the consumer into 
future proprietary file formats.
    3. Fine Microsoft for all of their past illegal activities and 
make sure it goes back to all of the parties, consumers AND 
companies, wronged by their unscrupulous deeds.
    4. Take a hard look at their activities in the ``boot 
sector'' and ``dual boot'' arena, such as their 
actions against BeOS and attempts to block computer manufacturers 
from selling multiboot systems. By ``boot sector'', I mean 
the fact that Microsoft has designed their operating systems to 
overwrite any previously loaded operating system entrys in the boot 
sector thereby attempting to restrict consumer choice.
    5. I am also a computer tech. Microsoft claimed their 
introduction of Internet Explorer into Win98 was for the consumers 
benefit and caused no harm to the consumer. This is completely 
untrue! Any technician who had the misfortune to have to work on 
Windows 98's first version can attest to how often the system failed 
BECAUSE of Microsoft's shoddy attempt to include Internet Explorer 
in the operating system. This cost consumers an immense amount of 
money, probably into the billions of dollars in repair costs, data 
loss, and lost productivity.
    6. Microsoft also claimed that Internet Explorer was not a 
seperate application and could not be removed. You simply have to go 
to http://www.98lite.net to find the truth. Yes it can be removed 
and once it is removed the problems I mentioned in number 5 are 
greatly reduced.
    7. There is an open source project called Wine. This project is 
an attempt by open source programmers to recreate an environment in 
Linux and other operating systems to be able to run Windows 
applications without the use of any of Microsoft's intellectual 
property. They have made great progress but without help from 
Microsoft, may never have the ability to run applications with the 
same quality as they run in Windows. Please consider forcing 
Microsoft to give up this much needed information so that Wine can 
run Windows apps. Doing this will allow consumers and developers a 
choice in the marketplace.
    In closing let me say that the current settlement reached by the 
DOJ and Microsoft stops far short of stopping their monopolistic 
efforts. I can think of NO other sector of our economy where a 
single company has so much control. I can think of NO other product 
where there is not at least ONE other competitor on the store shelf 
next to it. The computer and software industry in this country is 
ill and Microsoft is the disease. Please, for the good of the 
consumer and this nations economy, STOP MICROSOFT ONCE AND FOR ALL!
    John Helms
    107 Chase Ave.
    Cashmere, Wa. 98815
    [email protected]



MTC-00016350

From: Tadas Osmolskis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:45am
Subject: I oppose the proposed settlement
    I am a citizen of the United States, and a computer professional 
with 22 years of experience in the field.
    Having read the proposed remedy, I am deeply concerned that it 
will not address the pattern of misbehavior that Microsoft has been 
engaged in consistently for the past decade. I also believe that the 
proposed remedy does not address the concerns of one of the major 
potential and actual competitors that Microsoft has: the free 
software/open-source software communities.
    While I am not in full agreement with some of the rhetoric, I 
agree with the first two of the three remedies proposed by the Free 
Software Foundation (which can be found at http://www.gnu.org/
philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html).

[[Page 26239]]

    A summary of these is:
    1) Microsoft would be required to publish complete documentation 
for all programming interfaces and file formats, and would be 
prohibited from using any interface or file format which is not 
fully-documented.
    2) Microsoft would be required to use any patents in the field 
of software for defensive purposes only.
    In addition to providing a level playing field for *all* 
Microsoft competitors, the two proposed remedies above would be far 
less administratively burdensome, involve much less involvement by 
the government in Microsoft's management, and would go a long way in 
preserving Microsoft's ``freedom to innovate''.
    Thank you for your consideration of my views in this matter.
    Tadas Osmolskis
    11801 Rockville Pike
    Apartment 1409
    Rockville, MD 20852



MTC-00016351

From: Patrick Finerty Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the Microsoft 
Settlement reached by the DOJ and Microsoft. This settlement 
inadequately addresses the overly broad market power wielded by 
Microsoft while simply establishing another bureaucracy that is 
supposed to police Microsoft's behavior.
    Recent history has demonstrated the inability of the courts to 
address the anticompetitive practices of Microsoft in a time frame 
suitable to the pace at which Microsoft and other so-called tech 
companies conduct business. By the time any action has been taken, 
some companies no longer exist and Microsoft has effectively won the 
battle. It is doubtful that any other group would be able to act 
more rapidly when faced with the overwhelming legal resources of a 
company like Microsoft.
    I encourage you to implement a more effective remedy.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick J. Finerty, Jr., Ph.D.
    http://finerty.net/pjf



MTC-00016352

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlemnet is a bad idea. MS has a past 
history of unfair competetive practices and ignoring previous 
rulings against them. I don't believe the proposed settlement will 
fix the current problem.



MTC-00016353

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am glad the DOJ has followed the example of the individual 
states that have settled. For the sake of of the thousands of people 
employed by the technology industry, and agreat American company, 
please finalize this settlement and end the lawsuit for good. 
Microsoft has contributed a great deal to our economy and we owe it 
to them to end this controversy.
    I am a home computer user and like the compatibility of 
Microsofts different programs. I have no desire to use a combination 
of their competitors products that do not work together. Microsoft 
has agreed to share some of their technology with their competitors, 
as well as give billions of dollars of their products to schools. 
Please finalize this settlement and save our tax dollars from being 
wasted on needless lawsuits.
    Gary Wendt



MTC-00016354

From: Martin Euerle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea for number of 
reasons, some of which are:
    1) It provides to many loopholes for Microsoft to continue their 
previously court proven illegal behavior.
    2) Their previously court proven illegal behavior prevents many 
companies from developing new products because they know that they 
can not fairly compete against Microsoft, this lack of a level 
playing field hurts our economy and our country's future.
    3) The proposed settlement makes our government look weak, 
susceptible to improper influence or at best incompetent. All of 
these undermine our citizens belief in our governing system which is 
far worse in the long run for our country than having 1 company 
strictly dealt with for a decade of illegal behavior.
    Thank you for your time,
    Martin Euerle



MTC-00016355

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am already leaving Microsoft products behind, and turning to 
Linux; beware that the decision made regarding this settlement will 
have great significance to Linux's future: beware that DOJ does not 
create precedent whereby Microsoft can manufacture issues with 
Linux. That would take on the apearance of scandal, to consumers 
such as myself. Somewhere, DOJ hasn't seen the issue from my 
perspective, I hope now you will:
    Try to uninstall Macromedia Flash from Internet Explorer 5 thru 
6. Cannot use traditional uninstall, results of non traditional 
removal results in a different irritation in place of the Flash 
upgrade messages.
    Microsoft excludes whatever it wishes to exclude; and as any 
other entity would also act, Microsoft buys whatever functionality 
it wishes to incorporate. Internet Explorer is based on Mosaic, from 
University of Indiana,
    Urbana-Champlain campus; not developed by Microsoft-what 
browser development costs are involed when college students created 
the core? Rhetorically speaking, What development efforts have been 
expended by Microsoft? I'll answer that: efforts to embed Mosaic, 
under a new name, into Windows. Consider also that the mechanisms 
whereby new software is created has been a stronghold of Microsoft: 
most programming languages which are in widespread use are Microsoft 
owned. Yet information is not exchange in a timely fashion unless 
the destination is a Microsoft entity-then the information 
flows freely.
    Consider the licensing issues regarding new PCs, the company 
manufacturing the PC must suffer if they do not install Microsoft 
products?
    Is any of the activity regarding Microsoft's .net activity 
regarding exclusion of Opera Browser considered fair and open by the 
people using Opera?
    Consider the generoosity of corporations who donate older PCs: 
Microsoft placed a new retroactive license restriction on the 
software, but without any licensee agreeing to it! What kind of 
contract is Microsoft drawing up?
    Really-the perception of benevolence has already slipped 
from association with the Microsoft name; the multibillion dollar 
status of the founder is clearly caused by overdone profit margins: 
divide a percentage of those billions by the number of licensed 
Microsoft products, then deduct that amount from each license.
    Personal Reply is not expected-definitive DOJ suppression 
of Microsoft-I mean action-is expected. Currently, the 
computing public sees difficult times ahead of them, Windows XP 
(eXtra Profitable) places people further into Microsofts 
enslavement. Because people cannot tell Microsoft how to develop a 
product (the homeowner surveys are few and acceptable responses are 
predefined), because the people fear the learning curve associated 
with the only other operating system which will work on their 
hardware (x86 architecture), they will not seek a change. Was the 
south much different before Lincoln freed those slaves??



MTC-00016356

From: John D. Ballentine III
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-do not agree that it goes far 
enough
    I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-
trust proceeding does not go far enough to prevent future 
monopolistic behavior. The part that concerns me is that there are 
no mechanisms in place to prevent a repeat of the actions described 
in Caldera vs. Microsoft. In that case, they added code to Windows 
3.1 specifically designed to make it appear to fail when run on top 
of DR-Dos, an alternative to MS-Dos. They have never 
apologized for this behavior, and still show tendancies to do this 
again. Unless outside intervention happens, they will have no 
incentive to stop this. As currently written, I see no mechanisms in 
place to stop this in the proposed settlement.
    Thank you.
    John D. Ballentine III



MTC-00016357

From: Gary L. Withrow

[[Page 26240]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed DOJ Microsoft Settlement is NOT in the public 
interest and should not be approved by the court.
    Thank you,
    Gary


MTC-00016358

From: Kelly Byrd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea. There are many problems 
with the settlement, I'll focus only on one here.
    Under the proposed settlement, Section III.A.2 Microsoft is not 
prevented from taking action against an OEM who ships Personal 
Computers that includes a non-Micorsoft Operating System. A proposed 
change to the section is:
    2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or 
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c) includes a 
non-Microsoft Operating System but no Windows Operating System 
Product; or ... The Personal Computer market flourishes when OEMs 
can offer a variety of products to customers.
    These OEM should not be punished for offering choices. If the 
OEM choose to sell Personal Computers with a Microsoft Operating 
System and also Personal computers with a non-Microsoft Operating 
System.
    The market should determine whether or not they are successful. 
Section III.B. requires Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances to the top 20 OEMs. Why not all OEMs? 
Historically the Personal Computer market has been full of players 
and this extreme competition has benifited the consumer in many 
ways.
    KB
    Do or do not. There is no try''



MTC-00016359

From: King, Michael
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in full agreement with the objections raised by Dan Kegel 
at:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Michael
    Michael King [email protected]
    QA Software Tester
    Zebra Technologies Corporation ph: 847-955-6942
    333 Corporate Woods Parkway fax: 847-821-1795
    Vernon Hills, IL 60061



MTC-00016360

From: Joseph M Siegmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea



MTC-00016361

From: Aaron Charlwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello-I'd like to voice my feelings on the proposed 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement.
    To truly open up competition in the operating systems arena, I 
feel that ALL of Microsoft's existing and future APIs should be 
publicly published, that their license agreements should be 
rewritten to eliminate any restrictions on redistributing components 
critical for the operation of competing products on all existing and 
future Microsoft operating systems, and that an independent, non-
Microsoft affiliated enforcement body should be appointed to ensure 
that Microsoft remains compliant with revised terms of its 
settlement.
    Diversity and competition are crucial elements of a successful 
ecosystem. Monocultures do not encourage robustness in the face of 
disease or predation. I urge you to encourage innovation, and 
discourage ethically questionable business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Charlwood
    These opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, 
nor have these opinions been approved or sanctioned by them.



MTC-00016362

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The settlement does not solve the problem. Microsoft would be 
allowed to keep the profits it gained through actions the court has 
shown to be illegal. Competitors who were unfairly treated would not 
be compensated. The monopoly that Microsoft illegally created would 
be allowed to continue unchecked. Microsoft has broken the law. That 
has been shown clearly in the courts. The response here is 
essentially to create new laws to restrict Microsoft's actions. If 
the only punishment for breaking a law is to have new laws enacted, 
then what dis-incentive is there for breaking the new laws? 
Microsoft has made it clear that it will do anything it can to 
increase its monopoly. It has taken virtually every legal action 
available, and has taken several illegal actions as well. This was 
demonstrated clearly in the court case. It is not appropriate to 
trust them to change their actions. They must be forced into 
compliance with the law.
    The problem is that Microsoft will do anything that it feels it 
will make a profit from. If it sees that it will make a profit from 
taking actions that happen to be illegal, it will do so. This 
corporation has demonstrated repatedly for several years that the 
only issue driving it is profit. Therefore, it is vital that the 
government make it clear to Microsoft that violating the law is not 
profitable. This settlement does not do that. It leaves Microsoft 
with a hefty profit, and it leaves Microsoft's competitors crippled 
by Microsoft's illegal actions. This in no way presents a 
disincentive to Microsoft to continue their illegal activities.
    Thank you,
    Ken Kelley
    The opinions expressed here are my own personal opinions and do 
not necessarily represent those of anyone else at this or any other 
corporation.
    Ken Kelley
    Senior Programmer
    Boxer Learning, Inc.



MTC-00016363

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel compelled to write about the Microsoft Settlement because 
I feel that the settlement reached between the Justice Department 
and Microsoft wholly and completely fails to address the issues of 
the case. The settlement will be ineffective and unable to stop any 
future illegal monopoly practices undertaken by Microsoft.
    I feel the Justice Department has been fooled by Microsoft into 
accepting an agreement that has been crafted by Microsoft to be 
extremely vague and almost completely unenforceable. I also foresee 
that if certain actions that may be called for in the settlement 
occur, that Microsoft will take exception and head back to court to 
stall any type of enforcement against their business practices. I 
believe that the court should decide Microsoft's punishment because 
over time they have shown no desire nor any ethics or fairness in 
any negotiations. Only a severe court mandated punishment will be 
enough to force Microsoft to stop its anti-competitive practices. 
Only the court will be able to stand toe to toe with Microsoft and 
force them to obey. I believe that given any opportunity to skirt 
any responsibility Microsoft will. The decision of the court should 
be firm and binding on Microsoft from now on for all current and 
future products they may release.
    Microsoft's practices have irreparably harmed the IT industry in 
ways that may never be known. They have continually destroyed or 
subverted competitors who if they had survived and/or thrived could 
have generated truly great innovations for IT.
    The only fair punishment is to make them play fair. Microsoft 
should be forced by the court to release the full API (application 
programming interface) to all of it operating systems. A independent 
group should be formed to monitor their performance in this area, 
any undocumented interface found by the group should subject 
Microsoft to very large fines for every day the API specifications 
are not complete. This action would truly unbind the entire IT 
industry from what has been the core of Microsoft's strategy, making 
their software incompatible with everything except their software 
and subverting open standards within the IT industry.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Jason Werpy
    [email protected]



MTC-00016364

From: Thomas, Stuart P-Raleigh, NC

[[Page 26241]]

To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement applies no damages for past misconduct, 
which it should. I DISAGREE with the proposed settlement.
    Stuart P. Thomas



MTC-00016365

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am a canadian citizen but I feel anybody it the world who was 
at anytime forced to use MS-Windows should have the right to 
disagree with the settlement.
    I really wish IBM OS/2 had not been ``killed'' by 
Microsoft monopoly. After reading the court's findings of facts 
anybody should realize that Microsoft is ``Pure Evil'' and 
should be treated as such.
    I wish that the Judgment should last at least FOREVER and not 
for a little five year. MS has harm the PC industry for way more 
than five year, and it's not finished yet.
    How could MS repay the harm done? It's impossible to calculate. 
It's a shame death penalty is not applicable to companies because 
It's the only settlement that would satisfy me. MS has 
``murdered'' so many other companies.
    Sorry to be so rude, I am always filled with hatred when talking 
about Microsoft and if you knew me you would be supprised I can feel 
this way because I am a very calm and non-aggressive person.
    Best regards.



MTC-00016366

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft's anti competitive 
practices have not changed, and past actions show that Microsoft has 
no intention on changing it's practices. The proposed settlement 
does nothing to insure that this will change.
    Microsoft said that they'd behave themselves when it was 
discovered that they were using undocumented Application Programing 
Interfaces (APIs) to speed up their own programs while not 
disclosing those APIs to competitors. They said that they would 
behave when it was discovered that they had threatened original 
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that tried to sell competing office 
suites.
    Microsoft has continued it's anti competitive behaviors in a 
long list of ``strange coincidences'' that were 
conveniently timed to help Microsoft while hurting its competition. 
When installing Windows 95, America Online (AOL) ceased to work 
properly at the same time that Microsoft started pushing their 
competing Microsoft Network. Palm's hot-sync stopped working 
properly under Windows 98 when Microsoft was pushing Windows CE, 
their palmtop operating system. MS Java was found incompatible with 
the Java standard when MS realized that this technology would allow 
applications to be independent of a specific operating system.
    I have repeatedly heard the question, ``When has Microsoft 
hurt the consumer?'' They have cost companies billions in 
security problems. Consumers were, in effect, not allowed to use a 
competitive Office suite because of MS's illegal tactics to expand 
its monopoly. Many consumers were forced to spend hours with tech 
support to solve problems with their internet connection (AOL) or 
Palm device or cave in and switch to the corresponding Microsoft 
product.
    Most importantly, the proposed settlement does not punish 
Microsoft for repeated prior offenses. Under the current proposed 
settlement, Microsoft merely gets a stern warning to not repeat the 
crime in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Gergely Fejer
    Software Engineer Cary, IL



MTC-00016367

From: H
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement will do little to curb 
Microsoft's monopolistic domination of desktop computer software. 
There is much in the proposed settlement that is ambiguous and would 
allow Microsoft to define terms, e.g., ``API'' and 
``Microsoft Middleware'', and then state they are in 
compliance based on their definitions. I also believe the proposed 
settlement will be harmful to Open Source software. Since Open 
Source applications tend to be on non-Microsoft operating systems, 
any resulting loss of market share by Open Source software 
indirectly harms competing operating systems.
    Sincerely,
    Henry A. Greer
    1511 E Mead
    Spokane, WA 99218



MTC-00016368

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Call me old fashioned but shouldn't the punishment fit the 
crime? From a consumer perspective, I've been forced to pay for 
dozens of Microsoft licenses that I've never used and couldn't sell 
(OEM bundled) without challenging Microsoft lawyers. This is not a 
consumer friendly policy of Microsoft's and I couldn't blame Dell 
either because they were force fed that agreement in order to 
install a Microsoft OS on any of their systems. They further abused 
their monopoly with the bundling of IE with the OS that consumers 
were forced to purchase with their PC hardware. Microsoft has been 
been found guilty of abusing their monopolistic powers. In such a 
case the ideal sentence is one that will:
    a) compensate those affected by the abuse of power.
    b) prevent the occurrence of such abuse in the future.
    c) satisfy the general publics insistence that justice be 
served.
    With these concerns in mind, I propose a two tiered solution. 
The first is compensation to those already affected by the abuse. It 
would be nearly impossible to determine a specific dollar amount to 
distribute to each abused consumer and then identify each consumer 
to compensate. Such a process would also require so much 
beauraucracy that it would negate the consumers benefit. Instead, a 
dollar amount ($x) should be determined that represents the amount 
of money Microsoft received from consumers through less than legal 
business practices. Since direct distribution of that sum to 
consumers is impractical, the money should be distributed in a 
fashion that will directly benefit consumers. There are several 
possibilities here but the ones I would prefer would not just punish 
Microsoft but enhance competition in the OS market.
    1. My first suggestion is using ($x) to fund alternate OS 
development. In the desktop OS market, Microsoft only has one real 
competitor and that's Apple Computer. Some fans of other OS's 
(myself included) would be quick to champion other OS's like Linux 
or FreeBSD but the facts are simple. Consumers can't walk into 
CompUSA and buy a machine running anything but a version of Windows 
or Mac OS. However, making Apple the sole benefactor of a Microsoft 
punishment would only benefit a small number of those affected by 
Microsoft's ill behavior. We have to keep in mind that our primary 
goal is not to simply punish Microsoft but actually encourage 
competition in the computer software industry and thus benefit 
consumers. With that goal in mind, I would recommend taking ($x) and 
placing into a trust. The trust's charter should be drawn up with 
the sole objective of encouraging the development of alternate 
operating systems for consumer desktops.
    There are currently quite a few organizations that could benefit 
from having a big brother with deep pockets to assist them in their 
OS development work. A few examples of such organizations would be:
    Open Software Foundation for their work on the Mach microkernel. 
(portable OS bootstrapping code)
    Central Michingan Univ.: Contributions to Mach and kernel 
portability
    Apple Computer: Sponsors of Darwin and Authors of Mac OS
    RedHat: Sponsors and distributors of Linux
    FreeBSD foundation: Sponsors of FreeBSD
    There are quite a few other ``stub'' projects out 
there that have promise but these are the only projects that have 
had any impact at all on consumers. Each of the aforementioned 
companies has an OS that a consumer can install and use. Apple is 
the only one with a polished OS product the masses can use. RedHat 
and FreeBSD have stable OS platforms but their primary focus is on 
the server side. They would have an attractive alternative to 
Windows if they were financially enticed to do so.
    2. The next issue to address is keeping Microsoft from abusing 
their monopoly in the future. There's a lot of potential for 
different ideas here but lets adopt a Keep It Simple S approach. One 
of the main advantages

[[Page 26242]]

Microsoft has in the software marketplace is their OS monopoly 
status. A simple way to help negate this is mandate that all their 
software releases (for programs like Internet Explorer, Office, 
etc.) ship concurrently on each of the three most popular OS 
platforms. An example of this would be their next version of 
Microsoft Office or Windows Media Player would have to ship 
simultaneously for Windows, Mac OS, and Linux and include full 
interoperability between the OS platforms. This mandate would 
accomplish a lot for the consumers. Microsoft has a knack for 
inventing or altering standards when they make something for 
Windows. If their software applications had to support other OS's, 
they'd have to either adopt the communities standards (a win for 
everyone) or make their alterations common across all platforms (and 
thus a new standard that the community can choose or ignore). I 
think those two measures would impose a fair penalty upon Microsoft, 
allow them plenty of room to innovate and stripping them of their 
Monopolistic advantages. It will also leave the community with more 
choices.
    Matt Simerson
    397 4th Street
    Atlanta, GA 30308



MTC-00016369

From: Duncan Lowne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft must not be allowed to buy their way out of causing 
irreparable damage to the software industry. Aside from the 
previously highlighted unfair business practices that have run 
rampant in the Redmond Giant, their manipulation of the justice 
department and their blatantly contemptuous attempt to use the 
settlement for their own gain is reprehensible, and must not be 
ignored. I appreciate that the proposed settlement was rejected, but 
I strongly believe that a COMPLETELY impartial 3rd party must be 
brought in to craft a fair settlement for all sides involved.
    Sincerely,
    Duncan Lowne
    Software Engineer
    Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
    Cleveland, OH



MTC-00016370

From: Ethan Hartman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is unfortunately, far too weak 
and will not resolve any of the problems created by the MS monopoly. 
In fact, the settlement may well act as a tool for further 
anticompetitive practices: for example, the provisions for 
disclosing technical specifications are only for commercial 
interests-this would exclude many nonprofit and free software 
projects, especially the Samba group, which makes software critical 
for interoperation with MS windows.
    Check out http://samba.org for more information on their 
critical work. This is software I and many other people use 
every-if MS could use the proposed settlement to deny requests 
for specifications (and perhaps even fight efforts at reverse-
engineering under the DMCA) then this settlement would be doing real 
damage instead of helping to fix the MS problem.
    Microsoft must be heavily restructured, or have the source code 
of its operating system forcibly opened. The prevalence of their 
software has made them unprecedentedly powerful-this company, 
which has a history of ruthlessly misusing its influence, cannot be 
allowed to continue along its course towards total monopoly. This 
settlement will allow MS to do exactly that. I hope for all of our 
sake that an effective solution can be found. We will all regret a 
mistake in this case.



MTC-00016371

From: Paul Bennun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: MS Settlement
    I write to state my opposition to the proposed settlement of the 
MS case. I can see no way that the short- or long-term economic 
prosperity of the US is helped in this instance.
    paul bennun



MTC-00016372

From: Geoff Peacock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. It 
does not do enough to stop their unfair business practices.
    Geoff Peacock
    [email protected]



MTC-00016373

From: Derek Flynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. The software industry is young and a 
competitive marketplace will re-emerge if companies are willing to 
compete fairly. I feel that the only way to ensure that companies 
will compete fairly is to make it clear that they will not profit 
from illegally manipulating the marketplace. Microsoft should not be 
allowed to profit from its illegal actions, or else others will try 
to follow in Microsoft's footsteps. The proposed settlement is a 
slap on Microsoft's wrist and will encourage others to use similar 
illegal business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Derek M. Flynn
    801 S. Wells #1011
    Chicago, IL 60607



MTC-00016374

From: Robert C. Ramsdell III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    As a business user of Microsoft operating systems and software 
products, I am very concerned that the proposed final judgment in 
the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit is not in the 
public interest. I am writing to express my concern over this 
judgment. The ways that the final agreement fails to restore a 
competitive software and operating system marketplace include, but 
are not limited to, the following:
    1) The Judgment defines too narrowly the applications and APIs 
the terms of the settlement apply to. As defined, only listed 
Microsoft middleware programs are considered to have APIs of 
interest. This means that Microsoft is free to obstruct the 
development of competing products by changing the APIs of important 
programs that are not listed as ``Microsoft Middleware''. 
The list of applications that the Judgment refers to is similarly 
narrow, and leaves out important programs such as Microsoft Outlook, 
Microsoft installer programs, etc. In addition, it appears that 
Microsoft can avoid even the restrictions on listed products by 
simply renaming or replacing the programs.
    2) Microsoft is not required to release API information in a 
timely manner. Microsoft is only required to consider the interests 
of competing software vendors whose products meet ``reasonable 
technical requirements'' seven months before new releases of 
Windows. However, Microsoft is not required to disclose the API 
information these vendors need in anything like enough time to meet 
those requirements (whatever they may be). Indeed, since Microsoft 
is only required to release information at the time of the final 
beta release of it's software, these requirements can be evaded by 
simply scheduling the beta release less than seven months before the 
final release!
    3) Microsoft is not required to document file formats. These 
formats are a crucial interface to Microsoft software that the 
Judgment fails to address at all. As it stands, Microsoft can use 
undocumented file formats to ``lock up'' not only the 
software customers use, but the customers'' own data in the 
files. Moreover, under the DMCA, Microsoft can write it's licenses 
in such a way that customers are not even allowed to ``reverse-
engineer'' the file formats to retrieve their data.
    4) Microsoft is not required to disclose any patents it holds, 
thus exposing competing vendors to uncertainty about any patents 
they may be infringing, even when they use information provided by 
Microsoft under the Judgement.
    5) The enforcement provisions are too soft. As it stands, a 
Technical Committee is set up with investigative powers. However, 
the committee has no power to enforce any of it's findings. Thus if 
Microsoft decides to ignore, evade or obstruct the Committee, the 
only remedy would be to return to court. In the past, Microsoft has 
shown both the willingness and the capacity to subvert court decrees 
against it. Unless strong enforcement powers are built into the 
Judgment, Microsoft has every incentive to subvert this Judgment as 
well, and take it's chances in court while continuing any anti-
competitive practices.
    Please take these comments into consideration and strengthen the 
Judgment to truly restore a competitive operating system and 
application software market.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 26243]]

    Robert C. Ramsdell III
    5528 Middaugh Avenue
    Downers Grove, IL 60516



MTC-00016375

From: Alex Fajkowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very opposed to the Microsoft Settlement that allows them 
to write off their debt to society by ``donating'' their 
badly written and over-valued software to our schools. Forcing a 
decision down our schools throats like this only makes them repeat 
customers of bad software in the future.
    Please let schools make better decisions instead of tying their 
hands. Instead, the settlement should be paid out completely in cash 
to schools for better libraries, facilities, and budgets to purchase 
whatever they need.
    Do not make the mistake of letting Bill Gates corrupt America's 
youth just like he has corrupted the rest of corporate America.
    -Alex Fajkowski
    801 N Monroe St, Apt. 414
    Arlington, VA 22201



MTC-00016376

From: [email protected]. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American citizen, I want to voice my opposition to the 
proposed settlement for the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    I feel that the proposed settlement gives Microsoft too much 
freedom to damage and undermine the Free Software movement. I feel 
that the future of the internet and computing in general depends on 
having a viable open-source alternative, and Microsoft should not be 
allowed to prevent that.
    Sincerely,
    David Brandt
    60 Harriet Avenue
    Belmont, MA 02478



MTC-00016377

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'm writing to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement. It does nothing to prevent the 
company from leveraging its monopoly power in future, nor does it 
punish them for all he grief they caused in the past.
    As a U.S. Citizen, I feel that it is important to preserve 
competition in a real sense in the world of human creativity. This 
agreement only pays lip-service to ideals of competition, while 
really giving MS a blank slate on which to define how they want the 
computing world to be.
    It is unacceptable. It must *not* be the settlement. It fixes 
nothing, and stifles creativity.
    Yours sincerely,
    Eric Moncrieff [email protected]
    ``Their imaginations insisted that nobody changed much from 
day to day. Their imaginations were flywheels on the ramshackle 
machinery of the awful truth.'' -Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., 
``Breakfast of Champions''



MTC-00016378

From: Marcia Baczynski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. My two main objections are as follows:
    1. APIs are too narrowly defined, which will easily allow 
Microsoft to flout the spirit of the settlement.
    2. The settlement does not cover the intentional 
incompatibilities that Microsoft has historically introduced into 
accepted standards specifically for competitive purposes (as opposed 
to technological improvements).
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Marcia A. Baczynski
    Jersey City, NJ 07302



MTC-00016379

From: Jon LeBlanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:08am
Subject: My Opinion on Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Under the provisions of the Tunney Act I wish to make my 
concerns over the proposed Microsoft settlement known to you. I am a 
Canadian citizen who travels and does business in the U.S.A. 
frequently. I consider the proposed Microsoft settlement to be 
insufficient to redress the harm done by Microsoft to consumers and 
competitors in the past, and unsatisfactory to prevent future harm 
by Microsoft. Specifically but briefly, the proposed settlement 
fails to acknowledge or take into account competing operating 
systems such as Linux. This is an astonishing oversight, causing 
provisions of the proposed settlement to act as barriers of entry to 
such Microsoft competitors. Essentially, the proposed settlement 
guarantees Microsoft the capability to thwart the success of 
competitors'' operating systems by withholding critical inter-
operability information.
    I am absolutely opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    [email protected]



MTC-00016380

From: Dharm Kapadia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I am vigorously opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. The proposed settlement does not fully 
redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit 
their ability to commit similar actions in the future. Also, the 
proposal provides inadequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundreds, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    I applauded the Clinton administration's courage to prosecute 
Microsoft for their anti-competitive behavior and was disgusted by 
the Bush administration's decision to acquiesce when the government 
had the superior position by rule of the full bench of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) settlement was 
brokered by Bush administration appointee Assistant Attorney General 
Charles A. James, head of the DOJ's antitrust division. But career 
officials at the Justice Department, who had pursued the case since 
the beginning, displayed their displeasure with the agreement by not 
signing it. Also, the Attorneys General of 9 states and the District 
of Columbia found the proposed settlement to be substantially 
inadequate.
    The market must be able to return to a state of healthy 
competition. One can look at the market for PC microprocessors to 
see the value of true competition. Intel Corp. had a large market 
lead in microprocessors, but Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) was able 
to gain market share with superior products at a lower price. Both 
of which were in the public's interest. There were no anti-
competitive moves by Intel. In fact, Intel was pushed buy the 
quality and public acceptance of AMD's products to make a better 
microprocessor at a lower price. At no time was the consumer public 
ever harmed by this healthy competition.
    Microsoft is another story. Even after being found guilty of 
being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not changed. 
They use predatory business practices, restrictive licenses, and 
threats to OEM's, ISV's and their customers to maintain their 
monopoly. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe 
criminal penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I 
can see will curtail them.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions, their lack of remorse, and their arrogance towards 
the law and the general public.
    More importantly, the proposed settlement does nothing to 
correct or punish Microsoft's previous actions. There are no 
provisions that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only 
prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, 
goes against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization 
is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' only the instructions that 
they cannot commit those acts again, they have still benefited from 
their illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of 
their abuses and not for the American people.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust and speedy settlement 
just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is 
compounded and magnified. The proposed settlement it is obviously a 
sham, a Bush administration sanctioned gift. Not even a slap-on-the-
wrist, this proposed settlement does not address past wrongs nor 
does it prevent future anti-competitive behavior. The finding of 
fact which

[[Page 26244]]

confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict measures 
which address and punish the practices they have engaged in the past 
while at the same time prevent them from engaging in other 
monopolistic practices in the future.
    Thank you for your time,
    Dharmendra Kapadia
    Software Consultant



MTC-00016381

From: John Post
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/23/2002
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writing to express my disappointment with the proposed 
settlement for Microsoft. The current settlement does nothing to 
address the real problem, which is Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly 
position on the desktop computer.
    I am very proud to be an American, and I hope all Americans hold 
their freedom as dear as myself. When a company abuses a monopoly 
position, it is an action which threatens the freedoms of all 
American citizens.
    Please discard the current proposal and ask for industry 
assistance to arrive at a fair and productive judgment. I gladly 
offer my time to serve the public on a board to organize and present 
possible solutions that restores our freedoms.
    Sincerely,
    John Post
    Assistant Professor
    Arkansas Tech University
    Russellville, AR 72821
    [email protected]



MTC-00016382

From: Jim Begley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to register my comments on the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft antitrust case. I'm a software developer with 18 years 
of professional experience in the industry. Simply put, I'm strongly 
opposed to the proposed settlement. There are a number of specific 
problems that I see, but a couple of the biggest are: the proposed 
settlement's enforcement mechanism is inadequate; the mechanism for 
release of information to independent software vendors is flawed; 
and the definitions used in the proposed settlement are too narrow 
or too misleading to be effective. In general, I feel the proposed 
settlement does not go far enough to punish Microsoft for its past 
anti-competitive practices, nor does it go far enough to prevent 
Microsoft from repeating the behavior. Today, Microsoft is again 
attempting to use its monopoly in desktop operating systems to 
establish monopolies in other areas, areas in which there are better 
third-party products available, just like it did with web browser 
software. Some examples include audio and video media players 
(Windows Media Player), online authentication (Microsoft Passport), 
and instant messaging (MSN Messenger). If these Microsoft products 
obtain dominant market positions in the next few years, it will NOT 
be because of technical superiority, more features, or better 
customer support. It will simply be the result of Microsoft's 
bundling of these applications with each operating system sold and 
limiting access to competing applications through agressive 
licensing tactics.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Begley



MTC-00016383

From: Walter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    One of the things that bothers me about the proposed settlement 
is that one is still FORCED to purchased a license from Microsoft 
for any computer sold by a mainstream computer manufacturer.
    I have reviewed the proposed settlement and one of the MANY 
loopholes is that this problem is not addressed. I have no need for 
Microsoft products but must still pay for them. I, in effect, must 
contribute to maintenence of the Microsoft monopoly.
    Why?
    I oppose this proposed settlement.
    Walter MacArthur
    Dallas, TX 75238



MTC-00016384

From: Bob Marriott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to express my opposition to 
the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft case. Microsoft is a 
monopolist who will take advantage of the wording in this document 
and continue to use its monopoly to the detriment of consumers and 
competitors. I have believed for several years that the company 
needs to be broken up into multiple companies with appropriate 
oversight into its ongoing activities.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Marriott
    3 Brook Way
    Westborough, MA 01581
    [email protected]



MTC-00016385

From: Coyote
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea
    Christopher Michael Werner
    1870 East 38th Street
    Brooklyn, NY 11234



MTC-00016386

From: David F. Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement that Microsoft is proposing is a bad 
idea. The ``donations'' of hardware and software to 
schools does nothing but erode the user base of other vendors (both 
commercial and open source) in what is now their main venue. This in 
effect rewards Microsoft for anti-competitive behavior.
    David Reynolds



MTC-00016387

From: Dan Garthwaite
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for this moment to be an active citizen, I'll be 
brief. Here I sit, working for a Fortune 500 company, using 
Microsoft's Outlook email client, the number one propagator of 
modern computer worms, viral or not. I am, by trade, a UNIX 
Administrator, but am forced to use the very product that causes 
myself and my company's resources so much energy to clean up after, 
time and time again.
    When, in computer's short history, did we become subservient to 
the software? I believe it was when it left the hands of 
researchers, academia, and hobbyist, and left the 
``courts'' of peer review. Not that our company doesn't 
generate a large portion of its revenues from developing closed 
source software, but our products are designed by engineers 
according to procedures of peer review and built upon accepted 
standards that were borne of the purpose of interoperability between 
computing efforts. Microsoft, with it's constant onslaught of 
Embrace and Extend, and/or simply annihilation of its competition 
via acquisition, and its understandable position of subservience to 
it's shareholders to ever maximize its shareholder value, expose 
themselves to no such review.
    Indeed, they mustn't, for to do so is to open themselves to 
litigation by those shareholders. In this capitalistic republic, 
what investment firm doesn't own a piece of Microsoft, and in that 
light, what Market participating American? Microsoft is forced to 
continuously break the law for the purpose of self-preservation 
unless a stronger motivator ( government regulation ) suppresses the 
ability of its shareholders to litigate.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to curb Microsoft's future 
actions, certainly does nothing to reprimand past actions, and the 
proof of both is that even in light of Judge Jackson's findings, and 
the proposed settlement, it hasn't changed any of it's illegal 
monopolistic leveraging. That alone should be proof that the 
proposed settlement is entirely un-enforceable, and in-effectual.
    -Dan Garthwaite
    Science Applications International Corporation
    An Employee Owned Company
    Opinions stated in this document do not reflect the opinions of 
SAIC, it reflects the opinion of one of SAIC's many employee owners.



MTC-00016388

From: Barden, David R
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    bad settlement. it will not accomplish the intent. MS has not 
mended it's abusive

[[Page 26245]]

domineering ways one iota. They are the 800lb gorrilla stanidng in 
the way of innovation and healthy competition. We consumer have 
little choice but to be led about by the nose by MS as they continue 
to pour out new versions of buggy insecure bloatware. Only by viable 
true competition will they be forced to focus on improving their 
product not just their bottom line.



MTC-00016389

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir-
    I have read the proposed settlement, and have the following 
comments:
    1. J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can 
withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds 
that Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity and 
viability of its business. This seems like letting the fox guard the 
hen house and will allow Microsoft to effectively get around this 
sanction. I believe either the court or some non-microsoft entity be 
allowed to make the necessary findings
    2. Microsoft is given the right to select one member of the 
three members of the Technical Committee, who in turn gets a voice 
in selecting the third member. The committee is gagged, and sworn to 
secrecy, denying the public any information on Microsoft's 
compliance with the agreement, and will be paid by Microsoft, 
working inside Microsoft's headquarters.
    Again this seems like letting the fox guard the hen house. 
Microsoft should have no ability to influence the membership of the 
technical committee. The court should appoint independent members 
and should pay for the committee from a fund established for the 
purpose. Microsoft should pay for this fund but it is the court that 
should determine its disbursement.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Galka



MTC-00016390

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Everyone is working to get the economy back on line. Why are you 
continuing to harass Microsoft? Please get with it and get off their 
back so we can get on with building the economy. Thanks. Josi Roth



MTC-00016391

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an American citizen by birth, a tax payer by virtue of that 
citizenship, and a taxpaying citizen who feels that I am about to be 
betrayed by the very agency that was established to provide me 
justice as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the land.
    The courts found Microsoft to be a monopoly and to have 
illegally used that monopoly power. As that is the findings of the 
court your job is to remedy that finding. The proposed settlement by 
the Department of Justice does not even begin to address the issues 
of contractual bundling, middleware bundling, restoring competition 
to the operating systems market or deal with Microsoft's latest 
assault on the free market of the United States, Windows XP.
    I call upon you today as a US citizen to act in the best 
interest of myself, my children, and my fellow citizens and hold 
Microsoft accountable for their illegal activities. Turn away from 
the modus operandi of the Clinton era that fails to punish criminals 
and actually encourages criminal activity. Do not reward Microsoft 
for their illegal activities as the current settlement does.
    Even if you fail to compensate the legions of companies and 
people who's livelihood was destroyed in the wake of the illegal 
ramagings of the 2-ton gorilla that is Microsoft, at least protect 
us from further assault on our free market and Microsoft's attempts 
to undermine the infrastructure of capitalism as we know it. Let us 
be frank and realistic. Microsoft's tentacles are quickly extending 
into and engulfing various other markets fueled by their illegal 
manipulation of the operating system market.
    The future of capitalism itself is now in YOUR hands. Do 
yourselves, your department, and your country proud, hold Microsoft 
accountable.
    Russell Petree
    PC Life Cycle Management Technical Lead
    Sprint Asset Management Repository (SAMR) Technical Lead



MTC-00016392

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the MS settlement is a bad idea. Bad for consumers, bad 
for the future...
    Mark Jackson
    Shuffle Master, Inc.
    724 Whalers Way Bldg H Suite 200
    Ft. Collins, CO 80525
    Phone: (970) 377-4131
    email [email protected]



MTC-00016393

From: Aaron Pavao
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgement contains misleading and overly-
narrow definitions and provisions, as illustrated by the following 
points. The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace 
Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all. The PFJ allows users to 
replace Microsoft Java with a competitor's product-but 
Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET.
    The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware. The PFJ supposedly applies to 
``Windows'', but it defines that term so narrowly that it 
doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, 
or the X-Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and 
are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''. The PFJ fails 
to require advance notice of technical requirements, allowing 
Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by changing the 
requirements shortly before the deadline, and not informing ISVs. 
The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs so 
they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents. The PFJ does not 
require Microsoft to list which software patents protect the Windows 
APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in an 
uncertain state: are they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft 
software patents? This can scare away potential users.
    Thank you for your consideration.



MTC-00016394

From: Charles Coffing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. In particular, my complaint is this: No part of the PFJ 
obligates Microsoft to release any information about file formats, 
even though undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry (see ``Findings of Fact'' 
?20 and ? 39). I use Open Source software exclusively at home, yet 
Microsoft still does indirectly pressure me to use their products, 
due to their proprietary and undocumented file formats, used by 
others. Microsoft makes it clear: Either use their products, or be 
cut off from the rest of the computing world. This ties many to the 
Microsoft monopoly. If neither the open source community nor other 
commercial software vendors have access to documentation of 
Microsoft's CURRENT file formats, the barrier of entry is huge. The 
proposed settlement will do little to increase competition. It must 
be reworked to force Microsoft to open file formats, to both 
commercial and non-commercial entities.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Coffing
    Software Engineer
    home: [email protected]



MTC-00016395

From: Roy Milican
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing concerning the current proposed Settlement with 
Microsoft for its flagrant anti trust violations. The current 
settlement is completely unacceptable. Not only are they not being 
held responsible for enough money in damages they have caused to the 
many companies they have hurt or destroyed wielding there 
monopolistic

[[Page 26246]]

powers. There is nothing put in place to prevent them from doing it 
again. Since the swearing in of President Bush they have already 
relaxed and gone back to there old ways. I have been in the computer 
industry since I was 14 years old (now 25) and seen there damage 
over the years. I truly believe they need something as strict as the 
AT&T breakup to really open up competition in the operating 
system and software industries. This will be the only way a computer 
maker could put a OS on there machine other than Windows without 
fear of repercussions from Microsoft. I urge you do not settle like 
this. Do something that will actually make a difference. If you 
don't in another 5-10 years it will just be back again to 
haunt you.
    Sincerely,
    Roy James Milican
    San Diego, CA
    Roy Milican
    [email protected]
    Network/System Administrator
    http://www.anonymizer.com



MTC-00016396

From: David Vollmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft
From: David Wednesday, January 23, 2002
    The antitrust trial record on the Netscape demise is a 
monopolist's cookbook, a chronicle of bad faith and anti-competitive 
acts. Microsoft saw a threat to its dominance and responded with a 
ferocity that would merely have been ugly before it had a monopoly 
but which was illegal afterward.
    Please act to provide the public with alternatives to Internet 
Explorer!
    David Vollmer
    4801 Thurber Lane
    Santa Cruz, CA 95065



MTC-00016397

From: Pry Tim-tpry
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Tim Pry
    Unix Systems Admin
    Acxiom Corporation
    [email protected]
    Office:(501) 342-8004
    Pager:(888) 420-8626



MTC-00016398

From: David Brownell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:10am
Subject: Settlement is barely a slap on the wrist!
    Hi,
    I'm working on a more detailed response, but just in case It has 
problems getting in before your deadline, I wanted to make sure at 
least this comment got in.
    The proposed settlement, and even to a large degree the amended 
version proposed by states including California, is too weak. It 
does not provide effective redress, penalty, or prevention. Rather 
than deterring an illegal monopoly, it is taking legal steps to 
institutionalize it.
    Rather significantly from my perspective, it is also strongly 
biased against non-commercial software development, such as Free 
Software initiatives. Its rules on disclosure of interface material 
make it possible to hide information from organizations that are 
organized for the public interest rather than for money-making. And 
the lack of requirement for Microsoft to meet conformance tests for 
their specifications means that the true standard will need to 
include a buglist from Microsoft-where that buglist is under 
stronger controls against disclosure (to those that most need it) 
than even the original specifications.
    This proposed settlement is flawed, anti-competitive, and anti-
consumer.
    - David Brownell
    Software Engineer
    Palo Alto, CA



MTC-00016399

From: Bailey, Jason (NBA)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The currently proposed settlement with the Microsoft corporation 
is a travesty of justice for consumers worldwide. Microsoft's 
constant maneuvering and anticompetitive practices must be stopped 
if we are to ever have alternatives in the software market. Attorney 
General John Ashcroft could not be farther from wrong in stating 
that this decision will end ``Microsoft's unlawful 
conduct.'' This decision will have little to no impact on 
Microsoft's damaging and illegal business practices.
    The settlement, most significantly, fails to restrict Microsoft 
from including anticompetitive terms in its licensing agreements. 
Microsoft would still be permitted to restrict what types of 
applications run on Windows, as well as making it illegal to run 
Microsoft applications on any other operating system. This 
convenient non-restriction of licensing directly goes against the 
nature of this settlement: it does not stop Microsoft from 
continuing anticompetitive business practices. It has been shown in 
court that Microsoft has purposely induced software 
incompatibilities in order to harm a competitor's product. Why does 
this settlement take no stance in forbidding these intentional 
attacks on Microsoft's competing software providers?
    This settlement fails to protect Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) from retaliation by Microsoft that would 
negatively affect their businesses. The settlement would allow for 
Microsoft's continued persecution of OEMs that choose to ship 
computer systems that are not re-installed with a Microsoft 
operating system. If there is to be any change in the consumer 
market, OEMs must be allowed to offer consumers viable choices 
without fear of retribution from Microsoft. This settlement needs to 
contain provisions to that effect.
    Also, the settlement does very little to extend the provisions 
of this settlement to Microsoft products developed in the future, 
allowing illegal anticompetitive practices to continue with new 
versions of Windows and Windows-based products, such as Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertised as being ``Windows Powered.''
    The proposed settlement allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, allows for Microsoft to 
continue to delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible 
operating systems and software. This settlement should not be 
adopted without substantial revision.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Bailey
    Network Administrator
    St Louis, MO



MTC-00016400

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    MY HUSBAND AND I WANT TO SAY, NO WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE 
SETTLEMENT BUSH MADE WITH MICROSOFT.
    THANKS GEORGE AND CYNTHIA HIMMER
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016401

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I'm writing this to express my opposition to the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement. Microsoft in my view and in the courts view is 
a illegal monopolist who has seriously damaged many companies and 
the software/computing industry in general.
    Microsoft Word and Excel are the defacto standards for document 
exchange. You cannot be in business without owning these 
applications. Most people get these apps when they buy their 
computer. Generally Word and Excel are included if you are buying 
Microsofts operating system on a new system.
    However, if you do not buy windows, you have to purchase Office 
through retail and the cost is $500.00. This is an outrageous price 
and proves the lie that the MS monopoly has been benign for the 
consumer. A similar application called Apple Works that provides 80% 
of the functionality sells for $79.00. MS is able to maintain it's 
price point for Office because they control the document format and 
you have to be able to read and write in that format to do business.
    Any settlement of the MS monopoly should force MS to make the 
complete document format for WORD and EXCEL public domain-they 
should also be forced to provide translator code for all competing 
platforms.
    I think there are also serious problems with MS's active 
suppression of JAVA and it's .Net initiatives.
    Recently it has been reported that many of the patents for Open 
GL ( a competitor to MS directX 2D/3D imaging model ) have been 
transferred to MS by SGI for the purpose of damaging Open GL. Much 
of the vulnerability of the internet is directly

[[Page 26247]]

related to the unnatural dominance of MS products on desktop and 
servers. Any settlement must recognize the huge costs that have been 
indirectly inflicted on people through their negligent attitude 
toward security. It is their monopoly status that permits them to 
ignore the poor quality of their products without suffering in the 
market place.
    The proposed remedy is no remedy at all and in fact will further 
damage competitors, consumers and the computing industry in general
    Regards
    Dan Farrand
    President, Green River Computing
    PO Box 1101
    Pinedale, Wyoming 82941
    307-367-2276



MTC-00016402

From: Knox North
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am writing to let you know that I strongly desire that the 
settlement with Microsoft should go through. I believe that the 
resources applied to this effort should be refocused in other areas.
    Monopolies are all about restricting choice. In my non-legal 
view, it's silly to say that Microsoft is a monopoly as long as 
there is choice. If I want a better operating system, I can choose 
Apple's. I'll pay more, but it is better. If I want to pay less, 
I'll choose Linux. It's not as good, but it's free. It would seem 
that Microsoft has successfully found the sweet spot of not-too-
expensive and good-enough. I don't think they should be punished any 
further than what you have negotiated.
    Thank you for considering my views.
    Sincerely,
    William K. North
    (Retired)



MTC-00016403

From: George King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is bad idea. This company 
continues to abuse it's monopoly power even while claiming to be 
trying to settle.
    George King
    Columbia, SC 29209



MTC-00016404

From: Carl Youngblood
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement between the U.S. Dept. of 
Justice and Microsoft Corporation is a bad idea. Microsoft has used 
its monopoly power to eliminate the market share of many good 
companies that have offered better software than it has.
    Cordially,
    Carl Youngblood
    98 E 600 S #21
    Orem, UT 84058



MTC-00016405

From: David Gabler
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is David Gabler,
    I am writing you to tell you my disappointment with the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    There are many loop holes written into the agreement that allow 
Microsoft ways to not abide by the intent of the agreement. Some 
examples are:

-Enforcement. There is no method/means of enforcement. What is 
to keep Microsoft from breaking the rules. There need to be stiff 
penalties.
-Microsoft is trying to shift their market to next generation 
products however this agreement does not cover those products, e.g. 
tablet pc's.
-The definition of API omits many useful and necessary API's 
In addition to this a very large barrier to entry remains, file 
formats. No file formats are required to be disclosed.

    Please do not agree to this proposal with out taking into 
consideration the comments on Dan Kegel's webpage, http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
    David Gabler



MTC-00016406

From: Kevin Caldwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    no to microsoft



MTC-00016407

From: Elias Lutfallah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    If the goal of the settlement is to end the Microsoft monopoly, 
then the proposed settlement is inadequate for the task.
    One of the proposed items as I understand is to require 
Microsoft to open their code to allow handheld devices, servers, and 
networks so that smaller companies have a chance to compete. 
Initially this may help companies get a foothold in the industry, 
but ultimately this will only reinforce the Microsoft stranglehold 
on the world as it relies on the existence of Microsoft.
    One practice of Microsoft has been to ``embrace and 
extend'' publicly accepted protocols. For instance they may 
take the publicly discussed and agreed upon protocol for wireless 
networking, and add their own features. While the features may or 
may not be worthwhile, by disregarding the RFC for the given 
protocol, they now have their own proprietary protocol that 
undermines the rest of the industry.
    I suggest that any changes to a standard set by the RFC process 
that they wish to implement must be proposed and accepted into the 
RFC standard before acting on the change. At least this way people 
would have a chance to react and influence the desires of Microsoft, 
as well as be prepared for changes.
    This is just one aspect of the settlement that I have chosen to 
respond to, hoping that my contemporaries will address the other 
issues.
    Thank you for your time,
    Elias Lutfallah
    Chicago, IL



MTC-00016408

From: John Klapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a sham and demonstrates contempt of the law. 
It will do nothing to prevent or deter Microsoft from continuing 
their corrupt, illegal and damaging business practices.
    John Klapp



MTC-00016409

From: Kevin Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in opposition to the proposed final judgment in 
United States v. Microsoft. As a professional software engineer, I 
have repeatedly seen Microsoft abuse its market position to extend 
its monopoly into new markets and to destroy upcoming competitors. 
Microsoft has used various means to do this, including:

-hiding technical information (delaying or not publishing 
APIs, protocols, and file formats)
-introducing technical incomatibilities (introducing 
artificial limitations in compatibility and extending standards in 
incompatible ways)
-restrictive license agreements (requiring use of products 
only on Microsoft operating systems)
-restrictions in contracts with resellers (preventing 
modifications to Microsoft operating systems or inclusion of 3rd-
party products)
    The proposed final judgment does not include sufficient 
penalties or restrictions to either reduce the gains Microsoft has 
received from these illegal actions, or to prevent Microsoft from 
performing similar abuses in the future.
    Kevin J. Butler
    Software Architect
    Campus Pipeline, Inc.
    1073 S 2230 E
    Spanish Fork, UT 84660



MTC-00016410

From: Dennis Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, my name is Dennis Roberts. I do not agree with the proposed 
settlement. I do not think Microsoft should be broken up or fined. 
My view is so other companies and properly complete that all of the 
Microsoft file formats (i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc.) must be 
made publicly available. In my opinion the operating system doesn't 
matter. Microsft Office matters. People use Microsoft's operating 
system so they can use Microsoft Office. They do this because 
everyone uses Microsoft Office. If the file formats are open

[[Page 26248]]

then other products that not only run on Microsoft Windows but other 
operatings systems as well (i.e. Linux) will be able to interoperate 
with Microsoft Office thus allowing competition from products like 
Sun's StarOffice suite.
    Thank you for your time.
    Dennis Roberts
    16520 North Road Apt. B106
    Bothell, WA 98012
    Home number: 425-741-0427
    Work number: 425-288-4262
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00016411

From: Puga, Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    By settling the antitrust case against Microsoft, the government 
has handed over the keys to the kingdom. The settlement is a bad 
idea and I hope that the powers that be take another look and 
realize how bad things will become if the settlement goes through.



MTC-00016412

From: Bill Lipa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am a software engineer and entrepreneur with 15 years'' 
experience in the field of personal computer software development, 
including the cofounding of a successful Internet company that was 
sold to Electronic Arts for more that $40 million.
    I read the news of the Microsoft settlement with great dismay. 
It appears certain that under this settlement, Microsoft's predatory 
and criminal behavior will continue unabated. I believe that the 
continued existence of the Microsoft Windows monopoly is a direct 
personal threat to my earning power. That is because venture 
capitalists are extremely reluctant to fund any company that might 
compete in a market that Microsoft enters. Since Microsoft enters 
pratically every revenue-generating software market, there are a 
greatly reduced number of opportunities for entrepreneurs like 
myself.
    I believe that Microsoft has already leveraged its operating 
system monopoly into a monopoly in Internet browsers. This is an 
extremely dangerous development because despite the collapse of the 
dot.coms, the Internet will continue to grow in importance to 
American businesses and consumers, becoming a fundamental utility 
like water and electricity. I urge that the settlement terms be 
amended to mandate that Microsoft make the following inclusions in 
its Windows distributions:

-include the second most popular Internet browser, in a manner 
where it is as prominently displayed and as easy to use as the 
Microsoft browser.
-include the latest version of the Java Runtime Engine, again 
in a manner where it is as prominently displayed and as easy to use 
as any comparable Microsoft technology.
    Sincerely,
    William Lipa



MTC-00016413

From: Bryce Verdier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12am
Subject: Proposed Settlement is a bad idea
    Dear DOJ;
    I have been following the microsoft case since the beginning, 
and recently it has come to my attention that I can voice my opinion 
about how badly you are handling the punishment that is due to 
microsoft for their unethical practices.
    Please do something, this company was proved to use monopolistic 
practices to keep their company on top. In my own humble opinion 
this is a form of terrorism, a company takes illegal measures to 
help fulfill its goals, stepping on everyone and everything that 
gets in its way. Including the American Government.
    You, my govnerment, are the only ones that can stop this, now 
would you please help me to put some faith back into the system!
    Sincerely,
    Bryce Verdier



MTC-00016414

From: Dan Rozinsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the settlement reached in the Microsoft anti-trust 
lawsuit does not address the true issue. Microsoft seems to be 
punished for their behavior, in a limited sort of way, while 
avoiding the creation of a competitive marketplace.
    For this lawsuit to be truly successful in breaking the 
Microsoft monopoly it must insure that competitive and compatible 
operating systems be allowed to exist. At this time microsoft is 
taking legal action against lindows.com, a project which aims to 
create a compatible, competitive operating system to windows.
    The steps I would recommend are as follows.
    1) Take direct and immediate action to protect Lindows, WINE and 
other windows emulators from Microsoft lawsuits and interference.
    2)Force Microsoft (and ANY Operating Systems manufacturer) to 
make the complete specifications of their operating systems 
available so competing projects can create compatible and 
competitive products in the future. This does not mean that source 
code must be released. That is copywriteable and can be 
confidential. What is important is to realese the details of WHAT 
the OS does, not HOW the code does it.
    3)Prohibit ANY Operating Systems manufacturer from producing 
brand specific software. IE: if it runs on Microsoft Windows, it 
should also run on Lindows, WINE, or any other OS built to the 
Microsoft Standard. The final consideration is where to draw the 
line between Operating System and application. It seems to me to be 
a bad idea to prevent the manufacturer from packaging applications 
(word processors, web browsers, games, etc) with the operating 
system. This is one method of offering the consumer added value. 
Quality of support would be another. It comes down to this: No 
Operating System developer can be allowed to keep the specification 
of any part, module, or element of their OS secret. No operating 
system manufacturer can be allowed to inseparably integrate the 
Operating Sytem with the Application. The Operating System will be 
known as the code which controls the computer's hardware, volatile 
memory, non-volatile memory, inputs, outputs, and provides a code 
interface for the development of applications.
    If these rules are implemented MOST of Microsoft's product would 
be legal, requiring only small adjustments and some release of 
documentation. Elements of windows, such as the graphical interface, 
Internet Explorer, Wordpad, notrepad, Paint, the phone dialer, would 
be protected as Microsoft's property, available only in Microsoft 
products. However, Internet Explorer would be removable and 
replaceable. The Office suite of products would be available to run 
on any competing OS. The Windows GUI could be replaced by competing 
products.
    Perhaps a fourth and final consideration, that no software be 
available exclusively with the operating system should be 
considered. As I read your decision I see that some of this has been 
addressed, though the OS market does not seem to be opened to 
competition. Please reconsider this.
    Yours in competitive practices,
    Daniel Rozinsky
    1545 Route 9W, Apt 1A
    Marlborough, NY 12542
    [email protected]
    (845)236-3549



MTC-00016415

From: Windes, Edwin
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm opposed to the revised proposed Final Judgment to resolve 
the United States'' civil antitrust case against Microsoft.
    The definitions and terms used in many areas of the PFJ are 
overly narrow, and thus will not require Microsoft to alter its 
behavior. I'm specifically concerned that Microsoft will be able to 
frustrate attempts by ISVs to create compatible middleware.
    Ed Windes
    Software Architect
    OpenTV, Inc.
    Naperville, Illinois



MTC-00016416

From: Donald Daugherty
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Daugherty
6225 SW 170 Ave
Aloha, OR 97007
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the

[[Page 26249]]

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



MTC-00016417

From: Al Barrs
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 9:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Al Barrs
4731 Georgia Road
Greenwood, FL 32443-1839
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers-rather than bureaucrats and 
judges-will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Al Barrs



MTC-00016418

From: Tom Malone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial does 
not even attempt to address all of the anti-competitive practices 
that Microsoft is engaged in. Nor does it force Microsoft to correct 
its actions. Microsoft as a company is built on the credo ``All 
computers everywhere running Microsoft software and only Microsoft 
software. And they have done a good job of reaching that goal.
    Most of the ``settlement'' only helps to keep the 
Microsoft monopoly alive. While the rest of the 
``settlement'' does nothing to prohibit Microsoft from 
abusing its current position in the operating system market. These 
are important oversights given the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
practices.
    Microsoft was and is an extremely big player in the operating 
system/software market. As such they should be forced to open up and 
allow people to take full advantage of their innovations. By 
intentionally disabling and crippling other companies software any 
hope for innovation is lost. US citizens deserve more. They deserve 
the right to choose how and what they do with their computers. By 
allowing Microsoft to continue in its current manner that choice is 
lost.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Malone
    Manager of IT Systems and Administration
    Lancer Insurance Company
    370 West Park Avenue
    Long Beach, N.Y. 11561
    Phone: (516) 431-4441 x3230
    Fax: (516) 889-5111
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00016419

From: Jonathan Younger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the Microsoft Settlement and I do not believe that 
it will curtail the illegal practices of a convicted monopolist. As 
a U.S. citizen I do not think that the U.S. should be bending over 
for any company and it appears that is exactly what is happening 
with this ``settlement''. Microsoft, acquired and 
maintains their monopoly position through the use of illegal 
business practices and this ``settlement'' does nothing to 
prevent future abuses.
    I am against this settlement.
    Concerned Unites States Citizen,
    Jonathan A. Younger
    1419 Crystal Springs Drive
    Woodland, CA 95776-5779



MTC-00016420

From: Frank Shotwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:13am
Subject: I disapprove of the proposed Microsoft settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement, which is up for public 
review, does not do nearly enough to open up the playing field for 
software competition. With the entrenched monopoly that Microsoft 
now holds, I don't think anything short of requiring Microsoft to 
fully expose it's software API will be successful in encouraging 
important competition in OS and software markets.
    Thank you for considering my opinion. I hope that you'll 
continue to work with Microsoft in dismantling the most extensive 
and dangerous monopoly of our time.
    Respectfully,
    Frank Shotwell
    1418 Jenifer Street
    Madison, WI 53703
    [email protected]



MTC-00016421

From: Michael McNeany
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TWTMC:
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. The settlement 
does not do enough to level the proverbial playing field.
    -Michael McNeany



MTC-00016422

From: Fullmer, Boyce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the documents related to the settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case and have to comment.
    I am deeply disturbed that the revised ``Proposed Final 
Judgement'' will be completely ineffective as it currently 
exists. The definitions therein are often so restrictive that the 
judgement would eliminate any benefit to those it harmed the most. 
It currently ignores the most significant opponent Microsoft has 
which is the not-for-profit organizations, which include the Linux 
development coalitions. It also contains several loopholes that 
Microsoft is already planning to use. But most of all it is too 
narrow that it only restricts anti-competitive activities dealing 
with the operating system, browser, and middleware thereby allowing 
them to assert their illegal monopolistic influence in several other 
emerging markets. If I could enact a remedy, I would invalidate all 
their patents and have them publish the source code for every 
product they have produced. I realize this is a bit draconian and 
would never happen, but it would be much more effective in reducing 
the entry into Microsoft dominated fields by competing interests.
    Please do give Microsoft additional opportunities to abuse their 
monopoly under the guise of a settlement to ``unfetter a market 
from anticompetitive conduct''.
    Thank you for your efforts in doing what is best for all 
concerned.
    Sincerely,
    Boyce Fullmer
    Systems Architect



MTC-00016423

From: Joshua Gruber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:13am
Subject: Concerns about the proposed Microsoft settlement
    I am very concerned about the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. We have seen that Microsoft is more than willing to use 
dirty tactics to subvert or avoid restrictions imposed by the court 
or in written agreements. Microsoft has broken the law and a clear 
and unavoidable consequence of

[[Page 26250]]

their actions must be a punishment that will actually force 
Microsoft to consider changing their contempt for the law. In 
addition to ignoring Microsoft's history of contempt for the law, 
the proposed settlement contains as one of its conditions a huge 
boon to Microsoft: penetration of a new market. In effect this 
settlement allows Microsoft to dictate that the fines it should 
rightfully be paying for its criminal actions must be used to 
purchase Microsoft products for use in schools. Instead of allowing 
schools to purchase the software and hardware that best suits their 
needs, Microsoft is pulling off a coup. Microsoft is forcing schools 
to spend money in a way that aids Microsoft. This is money that 
Microsoft should legally have forfeited all control over because of 
Microsoft's criminal actions.
    Please do not allow Microsoft to get out of this situation so 
easily.
    Sincerely,
    Joshua Gruber
    Partner
    i-Xplosion.com, Inc.



MTC-00016424

From: marc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an american citizen registered to vote in Texas. I believe 
the only true resolution to microsoft's crimes is to split the 
company up. The current settlement will not stop microsoft, and will 
hurt me as a consumer. marc micro$oft is the path to the Dark Side. 
Windows leads to bluescreen. Bluescreen leads to downtime. Downtime 
leads to suffering. I sense much micro$ft in you.
    paraphrasing yoda



MTC-00016425

From: John Fawcett
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement. I am a programmer with 
over 22 years in the field. I have watched Microsoft rise from being 
a small, fiercely competitive company in a crowded operating systems 
market to being the sole survivor who is willing to either absorb or 
exterminate any potential competitors. While I may not have liked 
their tactics in the early years, I had a choice of using them or 
using CP/M, Dr. DOS, or any of half a dozen other products. Over 
time, Microsoft's licensing agreements with hardware vendors have 
worked to systematically deny me the right to choose any operating 
system than Microsoft. If I do choose a different operating system, 
I still have to pay the price to license a copy of Windows, as the 
licensing agreements often prohibit the hardware being shipped 
without any operating system. This means that I have to pay twice to 
get the operating system of my choice, and Microsoft wins 
regardless. This is not competition on merit.
    I have worked for companies that are scared stiff of competing 
with Microsoft. I've worked on projects that were canceled on the 
mere rumor of a competing product from Microsoft. I've seen products 
that were commercially successful, but were then crushed by the free 
release of a technically inferior product that came bundled with the 
Microsoft operating system. Again, this is not competition on merit. 
It is using the position as the only vendor allowed to be installed 
on many computers, along with the absolute control of how that 
operating system and it's components are presented to the end user, 
to take choice away from the consumer. I believe that Microsoft 
should be broken up into at least two units, and preferably more. 
The most important task is the separation of the operating system 
business from the other products. The process for including products 
in an operating system release should be competitive and unbiased. 
This should include everything from the Internet browser to simple 
things like Notepad and the Solitaire. If Microsoft is forced to 
account fully for the development, marketing, and support of each 
component, other companies would have the opportunity to compete on 
a level playing field.
    Operating systems are nothing more than the way applications 
interact with the hardware. They have nothing to do with end user 
applications like Graphical User Interfaces, Internet browsers, 
scratch pads, or games. Contending that the user interface is an 
integral part of the operating system is nonsense. Contending that 
the Internet browser is part of the operating system in ludicrous. 
Allowing one company to redefine terms for an entire industry is 
criminal.
    Best Regards,
    John W. Fawcett
    Senior Software Engineer
    [email protected]



MTC-00016426

From: Richard Wolfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a minority in the computing word, a Macintosh user, I feel 
the direct power that Microsoft has over the computing word 
everyday. The Macintosh platform only survives in the eyes of the 
consumer as long as Microsoft continues to supply the Office 
productivity suite. Microsoft supplies the Office productivity suite 
but ensures that key apps [Access, Outlook, FrontPage, Publisher, 
Project, Visio, MapPoint, Data Analyzer, and PhotoDraw] are not 
available to the Macintosh audience. This lets the consumer know 
that if you really want the power of office then you had better use 
the Windows OS. Note: Outllook for the Mac is available as a 
separate download, but it still lags in feature/interoperability 
parity with the Windows version.
    PC Office
    http://www.microsoft.com/office/programs/default.htm
    Mac Office
    http://www.microsoft.com/mac/officex/default.asp?navindex=s16
    The recent shift in Internet Explorer's reliance on ActiveX as 
opposed to the Netscape PlugIn architecture to display rich media 
within the browser benefits only Microsoft, and has far reaching 
future consequences in its platform specific nature. See the effects 
of this direction in the link below:
    http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/compatibility.html
    http://www.mayim.com/wdk/docs/whatsnew.html
    Also the tying of ActiveX and the new .Net initiatives to both 
Internet Explorer and the Windows OS, is leading to the demise of 
``Internet for Everyone.'' The internet by it's shear 
nature was platform agnostic. Microsoft is on the road to change 
that, if not by making certain sites work only under Internet 
Explorer and Windows OS, but by also giving the appearance that 
sites ``work better'' if you use Windows OS. This 
appearance issue weighs in heavy with the average consumer when it 
comes down to platform of choice. Sites where this is of great 
concern are the online banking/billpayment/financial management 
systems. [the links below are old but illustrate the point]
    http://www.heidsite.com/macshame/default.html
    http://www.google.com/search?q=cache: 
vHGblQbPmbgC:www.latimes.com/technology/consumer/macfocus/la-
000011724jun30. story%3Fcoll%3Dla-business-
mac-focus+web+sites+that+don%3Bt +work+with+macs&hl=en
    Microsoft's behavior in the past suggests that the Macintosh 
platform is allowed to survive so as to give the appearance of OS 
competition. Sure there are the *nix's but only Macintosh directly 
competes on the desktop. One wonders how much longer the Macintosh 
platform will be around given that Microsoft has be proven to be a 
monopolist but the remedy, thus far provided, lacks no real bite and 
seems to give the company the right to continue business as 
usual-or as Microsoft would put it ``continue to 
innovate.''
    The remedy that I would prefer to see put in place is one that 
places Microsoft back on playing field, let alone a level one. Other 
people have come up with remedies that I agree with, so I'll quote 
them rather than claim them to be my own:
    ``With Microsoft's APIs and file formats fully 
standardized, documented and published, other software vendors could 
compete fairly-which, after all, is what antitrust laws are 
supposed to promote. We might then be faced with a welcome but long 
unfamiliar sight: a healthy software market, driven, as today's 
processor market is, by genuine competition. ``Scott Rosenberg 
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/index.html 
and the comments of Robert X. Cringely http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
pulpit/pulpit20011206.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011108.html and finally the comments of Mr Nader http://
www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    I'm sorry if this has gone on too long, but I just wish to have 
a say in what will be our future... a future that will probably be 
controlled by Windows.
    Thank you
    Richard Wolfe



MTC-00016427

From: Sean Hertzsch
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''

[[Page 26251]]

Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Not being completely legal savvy, you will have to forgive my, 
perhaps brutish, interpretation of this case.
    To my understanding, Microsoft(R) is being sued with an Anti-
Trust suit because they are not allowing competition into the 
market. That, I can see quite readily. The proposed settlement looks 
to be more in Microsoft's(R) favor than the people of this country 
that want to ensure a choice. From what I can interpret, (again, not 
being legal savvy) this settlement only accounts for allowing 
shortcuts on the desktop of the Windows(R) OS, releasing the 
adaptability code for software to be run on the Windows(R) OS, and 
not allowing Windows(R) to punish OEM's for not selling exclusively 
Microsoft(R) OS.
    None of this addresses the issue of Microsoft(R) software that 
runs exclusively on the Windows(R) OS (to my understanding, part of 
the reason for this case) nor does it address the inablility of 
other operating systems to obtain, even a minor foot hold in the 
market, even as a free OS. I truly believe that there are several 
ways to resolve these issues without denegrating the Windows(R) OS.
    First, allow portablility for all Microsoft(R) software to other 
Operating Systems. This includes Microsoft Office(C), VISIO(C), or 
any other Microsoft(R) product. Right now there are several projects 
working on this functionality but are being done under duress. I 
know that the Lindows(R) project has just fallen under legal 
scrutiny from Microsoft(R). Granted this is for the name (which I 
can't see anyone mistaking) but, this will siphon financing from the 
development process to the legal suit. Possibly causing inablilty to 
push forward with the project.
    Second, I believe an optimum solution was granted from Red Hat 
Inc(R). for the settlement.
    http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press-usschools.html
    This will allow children, in their formative years to be 
introduced to a different operating system than Windows(R). Also, 
this will provide support for a much longer duration without causing 
exessive duress on the schools to provide the money for upgrading 
the software and updating licensing. This also allows students to 
become more aware of a real life, business situation, as the 
computers will be inherently networked.
    (As I said, I am not the most legal savvy and I hope I got all 
of the copyright and trademark etc.. in their appropriate place. If 
I failed to do so, I trust you understand that their position was 
intended.)
    Thank you!!
    Sean P. Hertzsch
    Qwest Essentials Certified
    Dedicated Accounts Rep. A-G
    [email protected]
    phone (419) 867-0227
    pgr (888) 983-9901
    fax (419) 867-0427
    www.svmg.com



MTC-00016428

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is ridiculously lenient. It seems like 
people keep forgetting that Microsoft was found GUILTY, GUILTY, 
GUILTY, and that the verdict was AFFIRMED by the appeals court. All 
that is at issue now is their punishment. Letting them off with the 
proposed slap on the wrist would be a travesty, and would 
irreparably harm the entire computer industry.
    Microsoft must be punished severely. Their monopolistic and 
predatory practicies must be slapped down HARD so that this time 
they won't come back in a few years and start pulling the same 
tricks. Please don't cave in. Make this criminal corporation feel 
the pain of justice.
    Jef
    Jef Poskanzer [email protected] http://www.acme.com/jef/



MTC-00016429

From: Todd Klemm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad deal for consumers. It rewards 
Microsoft for anti competitive practices.



MTC-00016430

From: Binu Parayil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement, as it stands, is a disgrace. 
To allow Microsoft to continue as a monopoly with a mere slap on the 
face is downright ridiculous.
    The fact that I can buy a car from any manufacturer and drive it 
on any road is indicative of a healthy, competitive environment. A 
more applicable example would be that the purchase of any car allows 
me to have any type of sound system from any manufacturer-I am 
not FORCED to purchase a specific sound system in order for me to 
receive FM radio. This is not true in the desktop computing world. I 
am forced to rely on Microsoft products if I am to continue 
interoperating with my fellow colleagues or associates.
    How did we get here? Microsoft has BECOME a monopoly, as 
determined by the courts, and will continue to be a monopoly if the 
current settlement proceeds. Furthermore, Microsoft will continue to 
use it's (now government-sanctioned) monopoly to leverage itself 
into handhelds, game consoles, cable tv, etc, until we are all 
FORCED to live in a Microsoft-enabled world, or else, go live in a 
cave.
    Binu Parayil
    [email protected]



MTC-00016431

From: Philip Gladstone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I believe that the Proposed Settlement does not repair the 
consequences of Microsoft's past illegal activities, and it seems 
unlikely to prevent future illegal activities. There are too many 
exclusions-for example, security-that make it possible 
for Microsoft to avoid complying with even the spirit of the 
Settlement.
    I am proud to be from a state whose AG is not signing on to this 
Settlement.
    Philip Gladstone
    Framingham, MA



MTC-00016432

From: Michael Coyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Given the past behavior of Microsoft, I ask that you impose a 
penalty that will finally stop the behavior for which they have been 
found guilty.
    The remedies proposed so far do not even begin to address the 
problem.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Coyle



MTC-00016433

From: Peter Venable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea! It will just let MS buy 
us off and continue to strangle the computer industry.
    -Peter Venable
    PhD student in computer science, Carnegie Mellon University



MTC-00016434

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, my name is Jon Ellch and I am a u.s. citizen residing in 
Naperville, IL. I just wanted to point out my biggest problem with 
the current settlement, although I dont know how to fix it exactly. 
The EULA on MS-Visual C++ specifically prohibits redistributing any 
program developed with it for use on an MS operating system. While 
this may not be a huge problem currently since there are no 
functioning implementations of the windows api other than MS's that 
situation could change fairly quickly.
    I also do not understand how MS could have the right to stop you 
from distributing your own product. To me it seems perfectly 
reasonable to write code on one os but sell it for however many it 
will execute on. Not allowing this seems to me like a steel company 
selling to a distributor, but only as long as the distributor resold 
to GM or one of its subsidiaries. I dont think that is legal..is it? 
Thank you for your time
    Jon Ellch



MTC-00016435

From: Matthew Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It must be re-thought and 
re-worked in order to more of an effect.
    Matt Olson

[[Page 26252]]



MTC-00016436

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my opinion that the settlement proposed for this antitrust 
cased is inadequate in breaking the monopoly established by 
Microsoft.



MTC-00016437

From: Tracy S. Ruggles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Period.
    -Tracy
    Tracy Ruggles
    [email protected]
    512/858.2150



MTC-00016438

From: JS Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am absolutely opposed to the Microsoft settlement. The idea 
that a large company can buy there way into, or out of, any 
situation they please is exactly what brought them to this point. 
Regardless of party or political affiliation, I will vote against 
any state, local or federal representative who backs the settlement 
with Microsoft; in any current of future election.
    Jeff Smith
    Portland, OR



MTC-00016439

From: Thernes Keith (cohlkrt)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This letter from Ralph Nader and Judge James Love accurately 
reflects my feeling on the subject of the Micro$oft/DOJ settlement. 
The current ``settlement'' proposal has the US Department 
of Justice essentially ``Looking the other way''. 
Micro$oft has never taken DOJ action seriously and has actively 
ignored DOJ actions in the past. In my opinion, they will continue 
to act the way they have been acting and do whatever they want 
anyway.
    Let's see you do something that will force compliance and 
stop Micro$oft from stomping on their competition and their 
customers.
    November 5, 2001.
    Letter from Ralph Nader and James Love to Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly regarding the USDOJ/Microsoft proposed settlement
Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, DC 20036
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367
Washington, DC 20036
November 5, 2001
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,

Introduction

    Having examined the proposed consent final judgment for USA 
versus Microsoft, we offer the following initial comments. We note 
at the outset that the decision to push for a rapid negotiation 
appears to have placed the Department of Justice at a disadvantage, 
given Microsoft's apparently willingness to let this matter drag on 
for years, through different USDOJ antitrust chiefs, Presidents and 
judges. The proposal is obviously limited in terms of effectiveness 
by the desire to obtain a final order that is agreeable to 
Microsoft.
    We are disappointed of course that the court has moved away from 
a structural remedy, which we believe would require less dependence 
upon future enforcement efforts and good faith by Microsoft, and 
which would jump start a more competitive market for applications. 
Within the limits of a conduct-only remedy, we make the following 
observations.
    On the positive side, we find the proposed final order addresses 
important areas where Microsoft has abused its monopoly power, 
particularly in terms of its OEM licensing practices and on the 
issue of using interoperability as a weapon against consumers of 
non-Microsoft products. There are, however, important areas where 
the interoperability remedies should be stronger. For example, there 
is a need to have broader disclosure of file formats for popular 
office productivity and multimedia applications. Moreover, where 
Microsoft appears be given broad discretion to deploy intellectual 
property claims to avoid opening up its monopoly operating system 
where it will be needed the most, in terms of new interfaces and 
technologies. Moreover, the agreement appears to give Microsoft too 
many opportunities to undermine the free software movement. We also 
find the agreement wanting in several other areas. It is astonishing 
that the agreement fails to provide any penalty for Microsoft's past 
misdeeds, creating both the sense that Microsoft is escaping 
punishment because of its extraordinary political and economic 
power, and undermining the value of antitrust penalties as a 
deterrent. Second, the agreement does not adequately address the 
concerns about Microsoft's failure to abide by the spirit or the 
letter of previous agreements, offering a weak oversight regime that 
suffers in several specific areas. Indeed, the proposed alternative 
dispute resolution for compliance with the agreement embraces many 
of the worst features of such systems, operating in secrecy, lacking 
independence, and open to undue influence from Microsoft.

OEM Licensing Remedies

    We were pleased that the proposed final order provides for non-
discriminatory licensing of Windows to OEMs, and that these remedies 
include multiple boot PCs, substitution of non-Microsoft middleware, 
changes in the management of visible icons and other issues. These 
remedies would have been more effective if they would have been 
extended to Microsoft Office, the other key component of Microsoft's 
monopoly power in the PC client software market, and if they 
permitted the removal of Microsoft products. But nonetheless, they 
are pro-competitive, and do represent real benefits to consumers.

Interoperability Remedies

    Microsoft regularly punishes consumers who buy non-Microsoft 
products, or who fail to upgrade and repurchase newer versions of 
Microsoft products, by designing Microsoft Windows or Office 
products to be incompatible or non-interoperable with competitor 
software, or even older versions of its own software. It is 
therefore good that the proposed final order would require Microsoft 
to address a wide range of interoperability remedies, including for 
example the disclosures of APIs for Windows and Microsoft middleware 
products, non-discriminatory access to communications protocols used 
for services, and nondiscriminatory licensing of certain 
intellectual property rights for Microsoft middleware products. 
There are, however, many areas where these remedies may be limited 
by Microsoft, and as is indicated by the record in this case, 
Microsoft can and does take advantage of any loopholes in contracts 
to create barriers to competition and enhance and extend its 
monopoly power.

Special Concerns for Free Software Movement

    The provisions in J.1 and J.2. appear to give Microsoft too much 
flexibility in withholding information on security grounds, and to 
provide Microsoft with the power to set unrealistic burdens on a 
rival's legitimate rights to obtain interoperability data. More 
generally, the provisions in D. regarding the sharing of technical 
information permit Microsoft to choose secrecy and limited 
disclosures over more openness. In particular, these clauses and 
others in the agreement do not reflect an appreciation for the 
importance of new software development models, including those 
``open source'' or ``free'' software development 
models which are now widely recognized as providing an important 
safeguard against Microsoft monopoly power, and upon which the 
Internet depends.
    The overall acceptance of Microsoft's limits on the sharing of 
technical information to the broader public is an important and in 
our view core flaw in the proposed agreement. The agreement should 
require that this information be as freely available as possible, 
with a high burden on Microsoft to justify secrecy. Indeed, there is 
ample evidence that Microsoft is focused on strategies to cripple 
the free software movement, which it publicly considers an important 
competitive threat. This is particularly true for software developed 
under the GNU Public License (GPL), which is used in GNU/Linux, the 
most important rival to Microsoft in the server market.
    Consider, for example, comments earlier this year by Microsoft 
executive Jim Allchin: http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-4833927.html
    ``Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to 
innovation,'' Bloomberg News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT 
One of Microsoft's high-level executives says that freely

[[Page 26253]]

distributed software code such as Linux could stifle innovation and 
that legislators need to understand the threat. The result will be 
the demise of both intellectual property rights and the incentive to 
spend on research and development, Microsoft Windows operating-
system chief Jim Allchin said this week.
    Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while 
discussing protection of intellectual property rights ...
    ``Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' 
Allchin said. ``I can't imagine something that could be worse 
than this for the software business and the intellectual-property 
business.'' ... In a June 1, 2001 interview with the Chicago 
Sun Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer again complained about the 
GNU/Linux business model, saying ``Linux is a cancer that 
attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it 
touches. That's the way that the license works, ``1 leading to 
a round of new stories, including for example this account in 
CNET.Com: http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-6291224.html
    ``Why Microsoft is wary of open source: Joe Wilcox and 
Stephen Shankland in CNET.com, June 18, 2001.
    There's more to Microsoft's recent attacks on the open-source 
movement than mere rhetoric: Linux's popularity could hinder the 
software giant in its quest to gain control of a server market 
that's crucial to its long-term goals Recent public statements by 
Microsoft executives have cast Linux and the open-source philosophy 
that underlies it as, at the minimum, bad for competition, and, at 
worst, a ``cancer'' to everything it touches. Behind the 
war of words, analysts say, is evidence that Microsoft is 
increasingly concerned about
    Linux and its growing popularity. The Unix-like operating system 
``has clearly emerged as the spoiler that will prevent 
Microsoft from achieving a dominant position'' in the worldwide 
server operating-system market, IDC analyst A1 Gillen concludes in a 
forthcoming report.
    ... While Linux hasn't displaced Windows, it has made serious 
inroads...].. In attacking Linux and open source, Microsoft finds 
itself competing ``not against another company, but against a 
grassroots movement,'' said Paul Dain, director of application 
development at Emeryville, Calif.-based Wirestone, a technology 
services company.
    ... Microsoft has also criticized the General Public License 
(GPL) that governs the heart of Linux. Under this license, changes 
to the Linux core, or kernel, must also be governed by the GPL. The 
license means that if a company changes the kernel, it must publish 
the changes and can't keep them proprietary if it plans to 
distribute the code externally.
    Microsoft's open-source attacks come at a time when the company 
has been putting the pricing squeeze on customers. In early May, 
Microsoft revamped software licensing, raising upgrades between 33 
percent and 107 percent, according to Gartner. A large percentage of 
Microsoft business customers could in fact be compelled to upgrade 
to Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a heftier purchase price later on. 
The action ``will encourage-`force'' may be a 
more accurate term-customers to upgrade much sooner than they 
had otherwise planned,'' Gillen noted in the IDC report. 
``Once the honeymoon period runs out in October 2001, the only 
way to `upgrade'' from a product that is not considered 
to be current technology is to buy a brand-new full 
license.'''
    This could make open-source Linux's GPL more attractive to some 
customers feeling trapped by the price hike, Gillen said. 
``Offering this form of `upgrade protection'' may 
motivate some users to seriously consider alternatives to Microsoft 
technology.'' ...
    What is surprising is that the US Department of Justice allowed 
Microsoft to place so many provisions in the agreement that can be 
used to undermine the free software movement. Note for example that 
under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can 
withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds 
that Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity and 
viability of its business,'' while at the same time it is 
describing the licensing system for Linux as a ``cancer'' 
that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights 
system and the future of research and development.
    The agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set of strategies 
to undermine the development of free software, which depends upon 
the free sharing of technical information with the general public, 
taking advantage of the collective intelligence of users of 
software, who share ideas on improvements in the code. If Microsoft 
can tightly control access to technical information under a court 
approved plan, or charge fees, and use its monopoly power over the 
client space to migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it will 
harm the development of key alternatives, and lead to a less 
contestable and less competitive platform, with more consumer lock-
in, and more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues to hike up its 
prices for its monopoly products.

Problems with the term and the enforcement mechanism

    Another core concern with the proposed final order concerns the 
term of the agreement and the enforcement mechanisms. We believe a 
five-to-seven year term is artificially brief, considering that this 
case has already been litigated in one form or another since 1994, 
and the fact that Microsoft's dominance in the client OS 
market is stronger today than it has ever been, and it has yet to 
face a significant competitive threat in the client OS market. An 
artificial end will give Microsoft yet another incentive to delay, 
meeting each new problem with an endless round of evasions and 
creative methods of circumventing the pro-competitive aspects of the 
agreement. Only if Microsoft believes it will have to come to terms 
with its obligations will it modify its strategy of anticompetitive 
abuses.
    Even within the brief period of the term of the agreement, 
Microsoft has too much room to co-opt the enforcement effort. 
Microsoft, despite having been found to be a law breaker by the 
courts, is given the right to select one member of the three members 
of the Technical Committee, who in turn gets a voice in selecting 
the third member. The committee is gagged, and sworn to secrecy, 
denying the public any information on Microsoft's compliance with 
the agreement, and will be paid by Microsoft, working inside 
Microsoft's headquarters. The public won't know if this committee 
spends its time playing golf with Microsoft executives, or 
investigating Microsoft's anticompetitive activities. Its ability to 
interview Microsoft employees will be extremely limited by the 
provisions that give Microsoft the opportunity to insist on having 
its lawyers present. One would be hard pressed to imagine an 
enforcement mechanism that would do less to make Microsoft 
accountable, which is probably why Microsoft has accepted its terms 
of reference. In its 1984 agreement with the European Commission, 
IBM was required to affirmatively resolve compatibility issues 
raised by its competitors, and the EC staff had annual meetings with 
IBM to review its progress in resolve disputes. The EC reserved the 
right to revisit its enforcement action on IBM if it was not 
satisfied with IBM's conduct.
    The court could require that the Department of Justice itself or 
some truly independent parties appoint the members of the TC, and 
give the TC real investigative powers, take them off Microsoft's 
payroll, and give them staff and the authority to inform the public 
of progress in resolving compliance problems, including for example 
an annual report that could include information on past complaints, 
as well as suggestions for modifications of the order that may be 
warranted by Microsoft's conduct. The TC could be given real 
enforcement powers, such as the power to levy fines on Microsoft. 
The level of fines that would serve as a deterrent for cash rich 
Microsoft would be difficult to fathom, but one might make these 
fines deter more by directing the money to be paid into trust funds 
that would fund the development of free software, an endeavor that 
Microsoft has indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its own 
monopoly. This would give Microsoft a much greater incentive to 
abide by the agreement.
    Failure to address Ill Gotten Gains
    Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything 
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an 
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is hardly a first time 
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct, choosing 
instead to repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers 
of the government and members of the judiciary. Microsoft has 
profited richly from the maintenance of its monopoly. On September 
30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short-term investments of 
$36.2 billion, up from $31.6 billion the previous quarter-an 
accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per month.
    It is astounding that Microsoft would face only a ``sin no 
more'' edict from a court, after its long and tortured history 
of evasion of antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary embrace of 
anticompetitive practices -practices recognized as illegal by all 
members of the DC Circuit court. The court

[[Page 26254]]

has a wide range of options that would address the most egregious of 
Microsoft's past misdeeds. For example, even if the court decided to 
forgo the break-up of the Windows and Office parts of the company, 
it could require more targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of 
its browser technology and media player technologies, denying 
Microsoft the fruits of its illegal conduct, and it could require 
affirmative support for rival middleware products that it illegally 
acted to sabotage. Instead the proposed order permits Microsoft to 
consolidate the benefits from past misdeeds, while preparing for a 
weak oversight body tasked with monitoring future misdeeds only. 
What kind of a signal does this send to the public and to other 
large corporate law breakers? That economic crimes pay!
    Please consider these and other criticisms of the settlement 
proposal, and avoid if possible yet another weak ending to a 
Microsoft antitrust case. Better to send this unchastened monopoly 
juggernaut a sterner message.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Nader
    James Love
    Cc: Stanley Sporkin, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Anne K. 
Bingaman, Joel I. Klein
    1 http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html 
``Microsoft CEO takes launch break with the Sun-Times,'' 
Chicago Sun Times, June 1, 2001.



MTC-00016440

From: Jeff DuDeVoire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the Microsoft settlement as provided 
in the Tunney Act. Microsoft's products need to be made as 
transparent as possible so that developers can create software that 
works just as well with any Windows OS as any other Microsoft 
product. This means opening the API to all middleware developers and 
allowing them to see how best to interface with OS.
    Also, API must be defined so that it is open to all to see and 
use. Without complete access to the Windows API outside developers 
will be at a disadvantage and Microsoft will be able to maintain its 
monopoly. Finally there does not seem to be any effective 
enforcement of the judgment. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
destroying competition and harming the market place. This has 
resulted in inferior products to consumers and the stunting of 
innovation in the market place. Was a product like Netscape better 
then Internet Explorer, we will never know because of Microsoft's 
actions. What other ideas and innovations that could have 
revolutionized the market place were stopped dead because of 
Microsoft's actions. An excellent example of competition has been 
the chip wars between Intel and AMD. They have pushed each other to 
create better and better processors at lower costs. The result has 
been that today we have processors that perform at speeds 
unthinkable a few years ago. What would the market be like if other 
OS's and software developers had a level playing field? Microsoft 
must open its API's and be forced to conduct their business in the 
most transparent way possible. If others cannot compete fairly it is 
Capitalism, Consumers, and the Marketplace that lose.
    Thank you for you time,
    Jeffrey C. DuDeVoire



MTC-00016441

From: tmac2000
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The government's proposed settlement with Microsoft is much too 
lenient, to the point of being almost criminal. Microsoft had its 
day in court and was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. 
There is no telling how many people were hurt because of its 
actions, not just the people who worked for the companies that were 
bullied out of the marketplace, but consumers as well. Microsoft 
could be the poster-boy for why there is government oversight and 
regulation. It has proven itself to be one of the most rapacious of 
American corporations, the embodiment of profit over ethics, time 
and time again. It is remorseless in its mission of wiping out fair 
competition.
    The punishment must fit the crime, if we the public are to have 
any confidence in our institutions, especially in these times when a 
Republican administration is seen, rightly or wrongly, as being soft 
on corporate ethics. The public is well aware that Microsoft 
attorneys stalled the case until a new administration was installed.
    I've lived in countries where the public had no confidence in 
their governmental and judicial systems-those are sad and 
scary places.
    Tim McDonald
    184 NE Withla Bluffs Way
    Lee, FL 32059
    850-971-9974
    [email protected]



MTC-00016442

From: Stan Zulaski
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the existing settlement is much to lenient 
towards Microsoft. I would like to see Microsoft broken up into more 
easily regulated companies.
    Thanks for allowing me to vent my frustration.
    Stan Zulaski



MTC-00016443

From: Antone Roundy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft does not go 
far enough to solve a chronic problem in the software 
industry-that it is too vague in some areas, and too narrow in 
others.
    Microsoft has shown time and time again that they will exploit 
any legal loophole, anything they believe they can make appear to be 
a loophole, or anything that they believe they can claim in court 
that they thought appeared to be a loophole in order to maintain and 
expand their monopoly powers. They have also shown that they would 
like to expand their domination to cover a wider range of products.
    While it is, of course, not a crime to expand one's business 
into new areas nor to be the market leader, I fear that unless the 
settlement either provides clear, watertight, quick remedies in the 
event that Microsoft attempts to continue their old ways in both the 
markets where they currently compete, or in markets new to them; or 
creates barriers to keep Microsoft from even being able to use 
illegal means to expand their control; that the time and resources 
spent on this case thus far will have been largely wasted, and that 
many more businesses and consumers will be injured by Microsoft's 
actions in the future.
    Perhaps I'm being hypocritical by not being more specific in 
this letter, but I have seen plenty of comments by other individuals 
which point out issues that concern me. One in particular that I 
will mention is Dan Kegel's comments, which may be found at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. I agree with the comments in that 
document, and have asked to be listed as a co-signer there.
    Please take the time to consider the objections that are being 
raised and to fine tune the settlement to ensure the time and 
resources already expended in this effort result in the meeting of 
the goals for which they were undertaken.
    Thank you,
    Antone Roundy
    Manager, Software Engineer, Systems Administrator
    Mouken, L.C.
    http://www.mouken.com/
    Spanish Fork, UT



MTC-00016444

From: Liz Petty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:17am
Subject: Comment on the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    My comment on the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement:
    Microsoft should be broken up into a Desktop OS and Server OS 
Company. Neither should own an interest in the other. All API should 
be published and sold for the same price or given away free. Desktop 
OS Peer to Peer Networking should be limited to file and print. This 
would create two companies that will have to really innovate and 
will have to encourage outside 3rd party involvement to survive. If 
the two new companies are really as good as they claim, they should 
have no problem continuing to innovate. Presently, everyone else has 
the same access to the two OSs as they do.



MTC-00016445

From: Lee Druxman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever this concerns,
    I understand that I have the ability to comment on the proposed 
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft.
    I have been using computers daily since the mid-eighties, when 
my father brought

[[Page 26255]]

home an early IBM-compatible computer. I hope to earn my livelihood 
by working in the computing industry. Consequently, this issue is 
centrally relevant to my life.
    It is widely believed by those familiar with the case that the 
proposed settlement is completely inadequate. It will do little to 
punish Microsoft for it plainly illegal conduct in the past, and 
virtually nothing whatsoever to prevent future violations of 
antitrust law. As a consumer, it infuriates me to be forced to pay 
for increasingly expensive software that diminishes in quality with 
each release. I applauded the Clinton administration's investigation 
of Microsoft. Their case was an effort to protect consumers and 
promote economic growth by restoring fairness and competition to the 
computer industry. Now that the DOJ is under new management, it has 
essentially abandoned its pursuit of Microsoft, suggesting that the 
DOJ no longer has any concern for either economic growth or the 
public good.
    The United States is a successful nation because its free 
markets encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-
quality, low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from 
monopolists who gain so much power that they can destroy the 
competitive nature of the markets in which they participate.
    I urge all parties involved to reconsider the proposed 
settlement. Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for its 
destructive abuse of its monopoly power. More importantly, American 
consumers need to be protected against future abuses.
    Thank you for your time,
    Lee Druxman



MTC-00016446

From: Big Endian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is merely a slap on the wrist and is no more 
than a reissue of the settlement for the previous case over IE 
integration into Windows 98. Microsoft needs to be limited in such a 
way that they cannot use their monopoly in any one market to gain 
monopoly power in a second market. The markets involved include but 
are not limited to: Operating Systems, Productivity (MS Office), 
Internet (IE, MSN, MSN Messenger). These are seperate, distinct 
markets that microsoft has employed its monopoly power in one to 
leverage the other. Their monopoly with DOS allowed them to make 
Windows 3.1 not work with Digital Research DOS (DrDOS). Their 
monopoly with Office has allowed them to force users to upgrade 
their OS and hardware in order to be compatible with files from 
users of a newer version of the software. Microsoft believes it is 
above the law and routinely abuses the legal system to stifle 
competition (see microsoft vs lindowsos.com)
    Daniel Mayfield



MTC-00016447

From: Benjamin Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very concerned about the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation regarding a remedy to their gross violations of 
antitrust law. I do not believe that this remedy comes close to the 
legal requirements set forth by the Court of Appeals ruling: 
``a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek to 
``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct'', to 
``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the 
fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no 
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future'' 
(section V.D., p. 99). The proposed settlement will allow Microsoft 
Corporation to continue many of the same practices that put it in 
violation of antitrust law in the first place, this time with the 
blessing of the US Department of Justice. In effect, the Department 
of Justice would be sanctioning further monopolistic practices and 
consequently causing a stronger lock-in of the market, the exact 
opposite of the requirements of any remedy. I believe that Microsoft 
Corporations's past deceptive and anti-competitive practices warrant 
a much harsher and more thorough remedy that addresses these 
concerns, and truly represents the protection of consumers that is 
at the heart of antitrust law.
    Benjamin Watkins
    Concerned Consumer
    North Kingstown, RI



MTC-00016448

From: Adam Keys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is bad, settles nothing, does 
not adequately protect citizens and does not protect businesses 
competing with Microsoft sufficiently. It is my belief that a 
component of the success of American capitalism is treating 
businesses more or less like citizens. Treating multi-billion dollar 
companies with huge lobbying power (Microsoft) ``more 
equally'' than other businesses or citizens is the quickest way 
to ruin this country. Do not let Microsoft's lawyers or public 
reputation people mislead you.
    akk



MTC-00016449

From: Jason King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundreds, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Similar to the settlement against 
AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, 
until its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for 
example, assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). This 
must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is 
lifted. Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jason King
    12405 Cassady Drive
    Austin, TX 78727



MTC-00016450

From: Jeremy Ellington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Specifically, I find the settlement lacking in its 
address of Microsoft's behavior towards not-for-profit 
organizations. Some of Microsofts biggest competitors in the 
software world (Apache, SAMBA, Sendmail, etc) are maintained by non-
profit organizations. The language of the settlement makes it clear 
that Microsoft would not have to provide documentation or license 
APIs or communication protocols affecting authentication and 
authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a 
business. See Section III(J)(2). Of course, the non-profit 
organizations competing with Microsoft will not meet this criteria. 
This is entirely unreasonable. These organizations are the biggest 
threats to Microsoft's monoply, and they should be given the 
opportunity to compete. This is just one example of how the 
Microsoft settlement does not go far enough to address the 
stranglehold Microsoft has on the entire software community.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Ellington



MTC-00016451

From: Rob Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
01-23-2002
Robert L. Becker
11401 Holly Court
Kansas City, MO 64114
    To Whom it May Concern,
    The proposed settlement between the Microsoft Corporation and 
the Department of Justice in the antitrust case against Microsoft 
does not adequately punish Microsoft. The settlement also appears to 
do little to put in place controls to prohibit Microsoft from 
continuing to act to harm consumers and competition in the United 
States and global economies. Microsoft has held the personal 
computer industry in a stranglehold for far too long. Despite claims 
to the contrary made by their marketing machine, Microsoft has 
stifled innovation and strongly curtailed one of the vital economies 
of today and the future. Please throw out this settlement and draft 
one that puts in place serious controls on Microsoft. An effective 
settlement would at very least require that they release only 
products that conform to the technology standards set forth by such 
bodies as the World Wide Web Consortium and the Internet Engineering 
Task Force, that they offer a version of their operating system that 
is free of such integrated applications as Internet Explorer, MSN 
Messenger and

[[Page 26256]]

Windows Media player, and that they open the file format 
specifications and possibly the source code of their Office suite to 
allow for competitors to better interoperate with these products. 
Microsoft has approximately 97% of the personal desktop computer 
operating systems market. With this overwhelming majority comes 
tremendous power to influence the direction of technology and our 
economy simply by default. Microsoft has recently been able to drive 
tremendous traffic to their MSN search engine by simply modifying 
the way that Internet Explorer behaves when it receives an error 
page from a web server. This demonstrates the power of their 
defaults perfectly. Behaviors such as this cannot be allowed by a 
company with as much sway over the market as Microsoft. Competition 
breeds innovation and advancement. Microsoft has squashed 
competition in one of our vital present and future markets. As such, 
they have hindered our advancement. Should we as a country choose to 
ignore their past anticompetitive actions and let them settle this 
case without severe penalties and constraints, we can very likely 
look forward to losing our position of economic strength in the 
global market as those in other countries move forward unhindered by 
the shackles of Microsoft's monopoly. Please do not let this case 
come to a close with this settlement. Microsoft has hurt us and our 
economy and will continue to do so should we choose to allow it. I 
do not choose to allow it and you should not allow it either. Stand 
firm and punish them, then put in place restrictions that will 
actually keep them from harming us further in the future. Thank you 
for your time. Please do the right thing.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Becker
    11401 Holly Court
    Kansas City, MO 64114



MTC-00016452

From: Chris McKenna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement does not go far enough.
    -Chris McKenna



MTC-00016453

From: Jeremiah Buckley
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is bad. It does not do enough to curb Microsofts 
proven attempts at crushing fair competition.
    Thanks.



MTC-00016454

From: Rich Cox (Online)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    Please don't allow Microsoft to settle the antitrust case with 
this kind of ``penalty'. Donating refurbed computers and MS 
Software to schools while a laudable action, isn't what needs to be 
done with this issue. The software basically costs MS nothing, and 
allows MS a toehold into one of their competitors last remaining 
competitive areas.
    Microsoft needs to be penalized in a severe and uncompromising 
manner. They must not be allowed to continue their software monopoly 
and anticompetitive practices.
    1. MS code needs to be opened up to EVERYONE, not just who MS 
specifies or allows with very narrow language.
    2. MS needs to fined.
    3. MS needs to be broken into separate companies.
    4. MS's deals with hardware vendors with respect to licensing 
and only allowing windows to be installed on new PC's needs to be 
nullified. People must be allowed ot choose their OS, or not buy one 
at all when they buy a computer.
    5. Internet Explorer needs to be removed from the OS, there 
isn't any need ofr it to be so tightly integrated.
    6. MS needs to be financially responsible for serious bugs/
security problems in their software. Outlook/Exchange and IIS is a 
nightmare, there have been several high profile incidents in the 
past year alone. MS's culpability in these is very apparent. They 
need to design their software with security in mind.
    MS is working very hard to expand their monopoly into the 
hardware and services area, please stop them now! There needs to be 
competition and fairness in the software/hardware market.
    Thanks!
    Rich Cox
    Database Administrator
    University of Phoenix Online
    Phone: 602-758-1977
    Email: [email protected] 




MTC-00016455

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I'm just writing to let you know that the proposed settlement is 
a total cave-in on the part of the DOJ. It's not going to do much of 
anything to stop Microsoft from continuing their illegal 
monopolistic practices.
    What we really need is totally open, free and unencumbered 
standards for information interchange. It's Microsoft's de-facto, 
proprietary ``standards,'' like the Word format for 
documents, HTML that only works with Microsoft's Internet Explorer, 
and the SMB protocol that keep other players from competing.
    Microsoft must be made to release either the API's or enough 
source code so that competing products can interoperate and exchange 
data with Microsoft products. Then these conpeting products can 
compete on their own merit. The exceptions for 
``security'' in the proposed settlement is totally 
contrary to interoperability.
    We do not need a break-up of Microsoft, we just need them to be 
forced to release enough information so that others can make 
products that can work and compete.
    Thank you.
    Larry Dillon-
    Assistant Systems Manager-
    Computers Unlimited
    (c) 2002Assistant Web Administrator-Internet Montana



MTC-00016456

From: Markland J. Benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse:
    I have recently read the revised final judgement in the case of 
United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation dated November 6, 
2001 and I have concerns regarding the proposed resolution of this 
case. The monopolistic behaviors found as fact in the case cannot be 
curtailed by an oversight committee that does not have authority to 
stop product shipments or impose significant monetary fines for 
infractions against the terms of the settlement. To say that a 
business with predetory practices should be curtailed simply by this 
committee's access into its day-to-day business, is to say that a 
lion will stop killing because we watch the lion's every move. In 
this case, as in the situtation of the hunting lion, direct and 
forceful action must be taken against the offender. Metaphors aside, 
the historical and effective work that the United States has done 
against monopolies within its borders has been carried out via the 
breaking apart of the monopolistic entities into smaller, less-
powerful entities. This remedy should be applied in United States of 
America vs. Microsoft Corporation as well. It has been proven 
effective over time and such a solution would show evenhandedness of 
the government rather than favoratism.
    A note on appearances-without necessary regard to fact. As 
it is now, it appears that Microsoft has purchased the opinions of 
the opposition and has nearly escaped with barely a hand-slap. Even 
the technical committee will not be immune to the enticements of the 
billions at the disposal of Microsoft Corporation.
    I hope that this short commentary can be of assistence in 
redering justice.
    Regards,
    Markland J. Benson
    1536 Hyatt Ave
    Morgantown, WV 26505
    (304) 284-9718
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@ 
inetgw,[email protected]@ine. . .



MTC-00016457

From: Andy McCown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:19am
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'd like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Since I'm sure you have plenty of these to go 
through, I will keep my comments short.
    As a software developer of many years, who has programmed on 
Unix, Linux,

[[Page 26257]]

Windows, and Mac platforms, I feel the proposed settlement does 
little to remedy the situation. If the proposed settlement is 
followed, it will go a small way towards improving the situation. 
However, some areas will not be aided at all because the proposed 
settlement terms are too narrow (no opening of file formats, no stop 
of intentional incompatibilities). These issues have been well 
addressed by other people.
    My goal is to point out that the proposed settlement seems to do 
nothing as a penalty to Microsoft. It kindly asks them to behave 
better in the future, places difficult to properly enforce measures 
on them, and then, in the end, allows them or even encourages them 
to keep the monopoly that they illegally built! Is this justice? I'm 
afraid the only way to make headway against their illegal gained 
monopoly is indeed to break up the company-but not as 
originally proposed. It should be broken into three companies, each 
one with the same set of source code and products. Then there will 
be competition!
    Just my comments that the proposed settlement does not go far 
enough and does not address all the issues that it should. The 
proposed settlement is not in the public interest, and needs 
significant revisions.
    Andrew McCown



MTC-00016458

From: Bill Thorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I think the settlement with Microsoft is a fair one. A lot of 
the criticism that is raised seems to come from competitors who were 
not able to compete in the market. Microsoft has a good product at a 
fair price so let's move forward.
    Thank you,
    Bill Thorn



MTC-00016459

From: Michael Kenning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    In regards to the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
DOJ, I would like to make something clear. I absolutely oppose this 
arrangement. Specifically, I feel that if the US government feels 
that this is an appropriate punishment for violating the law, then I 
will make my voice heard with my wallet and my vote. If a citizen 
acted in this manner they would be in jail. At the very least see to 
it that the people who make the decisions at Microsoft are held 
appropriately accountable. That means you don't slap them on the 
wrist with a horrifically simple punishment. Do you really think the 
proposed settlement is a punishment?
    Michael Kenning
    [email protected]



MTC-00016460

From: John C. Daub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I believe it 
only contributes further to the problem it's supposedly remedying.
    John C. Daub
    Grand Pooh-Bah, Hsoi's Shop
     



MTC-00016461

From: Wieland, Alexis P.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:22am
Subject: Opposed to the Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    Having read and considered the the proposed consent final 
judgment for USA versus Microsoft and feel compelled to voice my 
opinion that it is inadequate. It appears to neither adequately 
redress past wrongs by Microsoft nor put in place significant 
barriers to future abuses.
    My personal passion is in reducing the detrimental effect that 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices have on on the computer industry. 
It is my conviction that the proposed judgement is woefully 
inadequate in this regard. While attempts were made to open product 
API's, provisions J.1 and J.2 apprear to allow Microsoft great 
latitude in withholding information on security grounds.
    Further, the bundling practices that are so central to this case 
continue to stifle inovation by removing the financial incentives 
and rewards of innovation. A remedy along the lines of making 
Microsoft products as explicit extra-cost options in the purchase of 
new computers would seem necessary to remove this barrier. This 
would both allow consumers meaningful choises and make competition 
feasible.
    It would still seem that the simplest and fairest solution is 
the structural remedy. In the absence of that it seems necessary to 
carefully craft a much tighter and much more comprehensive responce 
to Microsoft abuses.
    Sincerely,
    Alexis Paul Wieland, Ph.D.
    2647 Glendon Avenue
    Los Angeles, CA 90064



MTC-00016462

From: Olivier Crete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I'm not American, but I am still extremely worried about the 
proposed settlement between the US, DOJ, and MSFT and I believe that 
it is not in any way strong enough to restore the competition in the 
Desktop Operating Systems market or browser market and it cannot 
even protect the existing competition in the existing applications 
market. Any solution must include completely opening the Microsoft 
Office file formats because they are a core aspect of the monopoly 
maintenance, and also limiting the abilities of Microsoft to act in 
online service to block them from using their monopoly power to 
leverage in another market.
    Olivier Crete
    [email protected]
    Montreal, Canada



MTC-00016463

From: Andrew Shea
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is a BAD idea. More stringent and 
punitive measure must be taken.
    Andrew Shea
    1265 East University Drive #3075
    Tempe, AZ 85281



MTC-00016464

From: Mike Yost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is an incredibly bad idea, and
    I strongly oppose it. Make the punishment fit the crime.
    Mike Yost
    1010 Cup Leaf Holly Court
    Great Falls, VA 22066
    =====
    Mike Yost
    michaelbyost.at.yahoo.com



MTC-00016465

From: Matthew H. Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is an extremely 
weak punishment for a company that has acted with such arrogance and 
unabashed indifference to previous attempts to reform its behavior. 
Microsoft is a monopoly and has continued to leverage its market 
position to drive out competition, even during the trial, knowing 
nothing would ever come from the case against it. The proposed 
settlement is a waste of all the time and money that has gone into 
the case. Microsoft was found guilty and as a repeat offender a more 
serious punishment should be considered.
    Matthew H. Ray
    Software Developer



MTC-00016466

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    It is fairly obvious that Microsoft has used its monopoly to 
destroy competition in both its existing markets as well as 
anticipated future markets. The damage to all of these destroyed 
potential new companies exceeds billions of dollars. Why then is the 
DOJ backing off from its job of prosecuting criminals? You even 
considered helping Microsoft with a judgement that extended its 
monopoly by giving its products to children. I can't help but wonder 
who might be issuing your paychecks, Microsoft or Enron?
    Break up Microsoft!
    Norman Strampach

[[Page 26258]]



MTC-00016467

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Esteemed seekers of justice:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The 
findings of fact indicate they have behaved unlawfully, and 
experience and common sense tell me they will continue to do so 
until effective measures are taken to prevent them from doing so. 
Other software companies must be given the opportunity to compete on 
an equal footing for the OS market and the applications market, 
without having to contend with Micorsoft's anti-competitive 
agreements with computer manufacturers and unlawful bundling of 
applications into their OS.
    I support the original order to break Microsoft up into separate 
companies that will then be truly free to compete on their merits.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Peter H. Schmidt
    Lifting Mind Inc.
    2 Ewell Avenue
    Lexington, MA 02421
    [email protected]
    www.liftingmind.com
    fax: 781 863-8858
    tel: 781 863-5200
    CC:Peter Schmidt
    Speaking for myself



MTC-00016468

From: Ian Penney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the recent Microsoft Antitrust settlement is seriously 
flawed, mainly because the Proposed Final Judgement Fails to 
Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently used by Microsoft. 
Particularly, Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open 
Source applications.
    The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA  states ``. . . 
you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that 
contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, 
any software that is distributed as free software, open source 
software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models 
. . . Publicly Available Software includes, without 
limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the 
following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or 
distribution models similar to any of the following: GNU's General 
Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic 
License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public License; the Netscape 
Public License; the Sun Community Source License (SCSL); 
. . .''
    Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include the 
competing middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office 
suite StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, 
and discourage the use of, competing middleware and office suites.
    As a systems administrator this directly effects the quality of 
software I can expect and the integration levels they can achieve 
with Microsoft Products. This cripples them in several ways.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Ian Penney/
    Systems Administrator
    [email protected]



MTC-00016469

From: Chris Hiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't think the proposed settlement will make any difference 
in Microsoft's future behavior. Please come up with a better 
solution.
    Chris Hiner
    Franklin, MI



MTC-00016470

From: Shawn Teague
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been very disappointed by the way the Microsoft 
settlement is being handled. The entire purpose of anti-trust cases 
to keep a single entity from welding to much power over the 
citizenry and to render ``Equal Justice for All''. A 
corporation should not be immune from having to obey the laws of the 
land, and when that corporation breaks those lows they should be 
punished in accordance to the laws they broke. I a corporation then 
proves that is has no intention of obeying laws it finds 
inconvenient to it's business practices, that corporation should be 
dissolved.
    I do not think that it is necessary at this time to dissolve MS. 
(Despite their apparent complete disdain for the judicial process, 
and willingness to perjure themselves.) However the ramification of 
their misdeeds need to have some substance to them. They MUST not be 
allowed to continue to disregard the laws of the land. MS is swift 
and harsh with software pirates (including government agencies that 
exceed license counts) I see no reason that the judgment against 
them be any different.
    Shawn Teague O
    Firewall Support
    766-0364
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00016471

From: John Reyst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Per the Tunney Act, I would like to add my comments re: the 
Microsoft Trial. These are reasons I am against the settlement as 
written:
-Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
-Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
-Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system- 
even for computers running competing operating systems such as 
Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 
consent decree.)
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace 
Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible 
middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs to 
demonstrate that their middleware is compatible. The PFJ allows 
Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers 
containing a competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating 
system. The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. Thank you for your time,
    John Reyst
    Owner, Net-Mechanics.com
    311 North Edgeworth
    Royal Oak, MI 48067



MTC-00016472

From: Wade Hought
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a software developer with 15 years experience in Windows 
and Unix-related systems development. I also pride myself as being 
an early adopter of more than a few Microsoft technologies back in 
the early 1990's when they (Microsoft) were the outsider with better 
technology. The arguments to the proposed settlement are many. I 
don't feel that these need to be detailed yet again here. The 
following URL http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html details my 
arguments quite well. I will say simply that Microsoft has broken 
antitrust law, and deserves remedies that effectively place their 
entire business back under competitive pressure.
    Let us remember also that competitive pressure didn't begin as a 
concept in a free-market system. It began as the foundation of

[[Page 26259]]

an effective government-democracy. Please address the 
Microsoft antitrust issue for what it truly is-the antithesis 
to our way of life.
    Sincerely,
    Wade Hought



MTC-00016473

From: Todd Fritz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22am
Subject: A Vote against the proposed settlement
    After reading the proposed settlement, I am NOT in favor of it 
in its current state. Therefore, please consider this a vote against 
the proposed settlement. I suggest a settlement that is more 
favorable for Microsoft's competitors, and unfavorable for 
Microsoft. The proposed settlement contains only flimsy and 
lightweight mechanisms for addressing competitive issues which will 
not significantly impact Microsoft's methods of conducting business. 
The settlement also lacks sufficient penalties for microsoft's 
harmful and anti-competitive behaviors. I suggest the following rule 
as a starting point: No settlement shall include any product, 
service or good, provided either from or of, Microsoft.
    I am also strongly of the opinion that Microsoft should be 
divided into at least two (ideally three) separate and independent 
companies.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Fritz
    885 Briarcliff Road NE, #8
    Atlanta, GA 30306
    404-378-3872



MTC-00016474

From: Michael Townsend
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my opinion that the Proposed Final 
Judgement for the United States vs. Microsoft is not an effective 
remedy for the harm caused by their predatory use of their monopoly. 
There are several key holes that it leaves for Microsoft to keep the 
Applications Barrier to Entry as insurmountable as is stands today. 
I agree with the assessments made by Dan Kegel at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. Some of them that I feel are 
worth highlighting are the poor definitions used in the Proposed 
Final Judgement. If definitions are going be changed from the courts 
Findings of Fact, they should be altered to cover more in the remedy 
not less. The changing to the scope of things like API and 
Middleware to include only a specific list of APIs and applications 
covered by the remedy, explicitly excludes all others, as well as 
any changes to the existing ones if they are rebranded and marketed 
as a ``new'' product. The second point that I felt should 
be considered is insuring that all necessary APIs are available so 
that non-Microsoft operating systems can implement them for 
interoperability. That should be ALL APIs. The exclusion of the 
software that deals with Security and Copy Protection is ridiculous. 
Years of open source software has shown that public review of 
security interfaces leads to a more secure piece of software. 
Likewise any use of the knowledge gained by published Copy 
Protection documentation, if implemented would be in direct 
violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright act, among other 
applicable laws. The main effect of keeping these secret is to 
prevent interoperability on both an application level and a 
networking level. Since arguably, any interface involves some 
security implications, this clause alone is an umbrella for 
obscuring any number of key pieces of protocols specifically marked 
in the remedy for publication. Another key bit of information that 
should be disclosed to ensure a fair marketplace for non-Microsoft 
products is file formats. Keeping these formats incompatible 
prevents users from switching to a competing product if they wish to 
continue to use their existing data. Microsoft should also be 
required to disclose implementation specific information to any 
public API that they modify to insure interoperability. Some 
examples of this would be the MS implementations of Kerberos , Java, 
and many W3C approved web standards. These are some of the 
weaknesses in the Proposed Final Judgement that I feel need to be 
addressed if the remedy is truly to be in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Michael A. Townsend
    Software Maintenance Engineer
    Pegasystems Inc.



MTC-00016475

From: Dennis Feuerbacher
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis Feuerbacher
6035 Newport Avenue
Norfolk, VA 23505-4701
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers-rather than bureaucrats and 
judges-will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies. I would like to add a word about the new 
AOL Time Warner lawsuit. I was a Netscape user and was determined to 
use Netscape. But I found that it was awkward and when I had the 
opportunity to use Internet Explorer, I found that it was very easy 
to use. My Mother currently uses Netscape and is constantly thwarted 
in her efforts to use the Internet. Thank you for this opportunity 
to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis G. Feuerbacher



MTC-00016476

From: Brian J. Dowd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This proposed settlement must have the MS lawyers laughing at 
the naiveti of the DOJ attorneys. I'm sorry, but this settlement 
advances only their company rather than allowing other competitive 
(Solaris, Mac, Linux, etc.) operating systems to have any chance of 
being taught in the school systems. Educational instruction should 
be focusing on diversity rather than hegemony.
    Brian J. Dowd
    (But I'm an MS stockholder, so I'll win whatever you do!)



MTC-00016477

From: Aaron Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the Microsoft settlement as it currently stands, as 
it is overly lenient on Microsoft. As a programmer on Win32, I must 
deal with Microsoft's poor software-made unavoidable by its 
monopoly- and would directly benefit both as a consumer and as 
a software professional from a settlement not created by John 
Ashcroft's wallet. Furthermore, a settlement harsher on Microsoft 
would be good for taxpayers, given that Microsoft does not pay 
federal income tax (Tim McDonald, E-Commerce Times, 10/12/00).
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Dale
    1623 N. Winchester #2R
    Chicago, IL 60622



MTC-00016478

From: Michele and George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer of Microsoft products, I feel dirty 
. . . . their software products are mediocre, but I 
have really have no choice but to buy and use them in order to 
function in an electronic medium. However, it is their ABSOLUTE LACK 
OF CUSTOMER SERVICE that takes the cake! They have no regard for the 
customer-keeping people on hold, passing the buck, not 
resolving technical issues, billing errors, etc. They just don't 
care about the customer, and that makes me sick. Only an abusive 
monopoly can get away with this sort of behavior.
    Thanks for reading,
    George and Michele
    Morgan Hill, CA



MTC-00016479

From: Andrew S. Zbikowski

[[Page 26260]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever this concerns,
    I understand that I have the ability to comment on the proposed 
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft. I have been 
using computers daily since the mid-eighties, when my father brought 
home an early portable IBM computer. I hope to earn my livelihood by 
working in the computing industry. Consequently, this issue is 
centrally relevant to my life.
    It is widely believed by those familiar with the case that the 
proposed settlement is completely inadequate. It will do little to 
punish Microsoft for it's plainly illegal conduct in the past, and 
virtually nothing whatsoever to prevent future violations of 
antitrust law. As a consumer, it infuriates me to be forced to pay 
for increasingly expensive software that diminishes in quality with 
each release. I applauded the Clinton administration's investigation 
of Microsoft. Their case was an effort to protect consumers and 
promote economic growth by restoring fairness and competition to the 
computer industry. Now that the DOJ is under new management, it has 
essentially abandoned it's pursuit of Microsoft, suggesting that the 
DOJ no longer has any concern for either economic growth or the 
public good.
    The United States is a successful nation because its free 
markets encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-
quality, low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from 
monopolists who gain so much power that they can destroy the 
competitive nature of the markets in which they participate.
    I urge all parties involved to reconsider the proposed 
settlement. Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for 
it's destructive abuse of it's monopoly power. More importantly, 
American consumers need to be protected against future abuses.
    Thank you for your time,
    Andrew S. Zbikowski
    1435 Hampshire Ave S, #120
    St. Louis Park, MN 55426
    Andrew S. Zbikowski
    http://www.ringworld.org
    Home: 952.591.0977
    Wireless: 612.306.6055
    ``Only two things are infinite, the universe and human 
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.''-Albert 
Einstein (1879-1955)



MTC-00016480

From: Alex Bratton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As a member of the technology community I must say that I do not 
agree with the proposed Microsoft settlement. Microsoft has had a 
tremendous impact on the technology world in both positive and 
negative ways but this settlement amounts to barely an 
acknowledgement of their manipulative business practices and the 
monolopy power they have abused. Two major areas must be addressed 
that are not sufficiently covered by this proposed settlement: 
1-the guilty must be punished for the massive damage they have 
done to the competitive landscape in the technology sector and 
2-much more significant measures need to be taken to ensure 
that they cannot continue to abuse their market position. I hope 
that you will reject the proposed settlement as not reaching far 
enough to address these problems.
    Thank you,
    Alex Bratton
    CEO, The Net Squad



MTC-00016481

From: Dagny Haug
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is *not* a good idea.
    Dagny Haug
    Associate Program Director
    Edina Technical Education Center
    University of Minnesota
    http://www.cce.umn.edu/infotech/
    Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and 
only you can determine how it is spent. Be careful lest other people 
spend it for you. 
    Carl Sandburg



MTC-00016482

From: John McCutcheon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am submitting this comment, as permitted by the Tunney act, 
regarding the remedies proposed as the outcome of the Microsoft 
Antitrust trial. As a scientist in training, I must work with non-
Microsoft operating systems and products every day. The proprietary 
and ever-changing FILE FORMATS used by Microsoft, however, make even 
the exchange of simple text files between Microsoft and non-
Microsoft programs incredibly cumbersome. Any proposed Microsoft 
remedy which does not include the absolute requirement for openly 
published data file formats falls far short of the required public 
benefit.
    On the day-to-day office work level, it is this intentional file 
format incompatibility which forces purchase of Microsoft products, 
and further, it is the artificial incompatibility BETWEEN VERSIONS 
OF THE SAME MICROSOFT PRODUCT which forces purchase of ever newer 
Microsoft products, EVEN THOUGH THEY FREQUENTLY ADD NO RELEVANT 
FUNCTIONALITY OVER THE OLDER PRODUCTS. Publicly available Microsoft 
file format specifications would allow third-party developers to 
produce file conversion tools which completely obviate this unfair 
Microsoft practice.
    Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this judgment.
    Sincerely,
    John P. McCutcheon
    Program in Computational Biology
    Washington University
    St. Louis, MO



MTC-00016483

From: Administrator
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a concerned citizen asking that a reasonable judgment be 
found against Microsoft. I think a reasonable settlement of this 
affair should include the open sourcing of Windows code. It's too 
late for the competition to take hold now. Everyone is used to used 
Windows as an operating system. Every new system out there ships 
with it, and Microsoft is reported to even track companies who DON'T 
ship with it.
    To put an end to their predatory practices and for security 
reasons, it is clear that Windows needs to be opened up so others 
may design competing operating systems. After years of delay and 
legal manuverings, this is your chance to finally do something to 
punish Microsoft and throw open the doors to true operating system 
competition.
    Sincerely,
    Charles T. Hunnefield
    Technology Coordinator
    Linden Hall School for Girls



MTC-00016484

From: Thomas Pluck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to say that I think the proposed settlement for the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case is too lenient. Microsoft has had a 
stranglehold on the market for a very long time and their habit of 
stifling innovation and crushing competition is infamous. They 
continue to use their monopoly to springboard into other markets and 
to avoid fixing serious security issues with their products.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Pluck



MTC-00016485

From: Keith Allington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read through the proposed settlement with Microsoft and 
felt it necessary to notify you of my feelings. I urge the DOJ to 
abandon the proposed settlement in its current form. The proposed 
settlement looks to me to be the same type of ``slap on the 
wrist'' that Microsoft received in the last anti-trust finding 
against them. It does not truly address Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior nor does it offer any incentive for Microsoft to change its 
behavior in the future.
    Thank-you for your time.
    Norman K. Allington
    944 W Cambridge
    Fresno, CA 93705



MTC-00016486

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer user, and supervisor of a computer department at 
our university, I see

[[Page 26261]]

the microsoft settlement as VERY harmful to consumers. They have 
been declared a monopoly, and have been shown to use monopolistic 
practices. Worse, in our dealing with their company, they have 
treated us as if they were a monopoly. Most damaging is that most 
people treat them as if they were a monopoly, saying ``We have 
to accept their policies on software licenses because what else can 
we do''. If nothing is done now, when are we going to do it. 
Their policies on Windows XP prove that they are never going to fix 
their problems without a big hammer hanging over their heads. If we 
let them off now, we will be forced to take even more drastic 
actions later.
    Please reject the current settlement.
    Dr. Matthew Asplund
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
    Brigham Young Univeristy
    Provo, UT 84606



MTC-00016487

From: David Wheeler
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the proposed Settlement of DOJ vs. Microsoft,
    I would like to place these comments on the record in accordance 
with the Tunney Act.
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad one. As a 
professional software engineer I understand the Microsoft's monopoly 
position is sustained though the use of private standards only 
available to Microsoft. These private standards include aspects of 
the Windows API and the file formats of the popular Microsoft Office 
software suites. Competition to the Windows OS will not be possible 
unless either the Office Suite is made to run on any competing OS or 
a competitor to the Office Suite can be created. Neither is possible 
as long as the information required to create this compatibility 
remains proprietary to Microsoft. The private API's in the Windows 
OS are the tools Microsoft used to extend its monopoly from the OS 
market into the software applications market. Since this settlement 
does nothing to open those private standards. Therefore, Microsoft 
will remain in control of its monopoly and competing ventures will 
be at a distinct disadvantage in emerging markets. For these reasons 
I believe this settlement should be rejected so that a more 
satisfactory conclusion can be reached. Thank you.
    Respectfully,
    David Wheeler
    David Wheeler, Megisto Systems, Inc.
    Principal Software Engineer, (W) (301) 444-1791



MTC-00016488

From: Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely: The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-
compatible competing operating systems:
    -Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry. The PFJ Contains 
Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and Provisions
    -The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret 
APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered.
    -The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    -The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product- but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    -The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but 
it defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    -The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    -The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation 
to ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only 
after the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware 
is compatible.
    -The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    -The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release 
documentation about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    -The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License 
Terms currently used by Microsoft :
    -Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to 
keep Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    -Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to 
keep Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    -Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.) The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft:
    -Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    -The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs
    -The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    -The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    -The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows 
(MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or 
Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on 
Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share in 
other areas. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an 
effective enforcement mechanism. I also agree with the conclusion 
reached by the Kegel document, namely that the Proposed Final 
Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the emergence of 
competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is therefore not 
in the public interest. It should not be adopted without substantial 
revision to address these problems. Sincerely,
    J. Scott Hofmann
    J. Scott Hofmann, http://www.seas.gwu.edu/student/shofmann/
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00016489

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Please do not let yourself be bought off by the monopoly that is 
Microsoft. Their business practices are stifling the creativity and 
consumer options that we as Americans have been blessed with for 
hundreds of years.
    Please stop them now.
    Sincerely,
    Lee McLain- Remove *NOSPAM* from email address when 
responding to this message!



MTC-00016490

From: John August
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement currently proposed to resolve the Microsoft 
antitrust case is not any where near severe enough for the unlawful 
actions and disruption of normal commerce that Microsoft has caused. 
I would urge that the settlement be revamped and strengthened to 
insure that Microsoft is not put in a position where they can't be 
trusted again. They've proven to us as a people that time and time 
again they'll abuse the strength they have at any point they see 
fit.
    Thank you.



MTC-00016491

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is BAD for two reasons: It will not 
affect that fact that it is almost impossible to buy a pre-built PC

[[Page 26262]]

without a Microsoft Operating System on it. It will not affect 
Microsoft's use of licensing to restrain choice in the marketplace 
for software.
    * Joseph W. Gibson, Lead Software Engineer *
    * ``Surf the Wave of Chaos'' *
    * [email protected], C/Unix/X *



MTC-00016492

From: Mr Z
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. Microsoft's actions since being 
declared an illegal monopolist have not changed. There are no 
provisions that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only 
prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, 
goes against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization 
is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot 
commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their 
illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their 
abuses and not for the American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Zimmerman



MTC-00016493

From: Armstrong, Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I still support the breakup of Microsoft along the lines of 
Judge Jackson's original ruling. At the least, I support the 
alternative settlement proposed by the states who have not agreed to 
the wrist-slap agreed to by the current administration. Microsoft 
continues to abuse their monopoly position in the computer market 
and have stalled all computer innovations that have any future 
chance of success that don't increase the Microsoft monopoly.
    Venture capital money has completely dried up for anything that 
might be interesting enough to get Microsoft's attention (and that 
is almost everything). They have leveraged their OS monopoly to gain 
monopolies in word processing and general ``office'' 
productivity applications as well as browsers. Their stated interest 
in ``speech recognition'' has stalled development of this 
critical technology by the few firms that have pushed it to the 
current state of the art. Breaking up Microsoft so that the 
Operating System business cannot be leveraged with the Applications 
businesses is the right remedy. Forcing Microsoft to ship a stripped 
version of the OS (for a significantly reduced price) is a poor 
substitute but better than nothing. Microsoft was found guilty of 
serious crimes. The appropriate remedy should both return 
competition to a fair level plus strip them of their ill-gotten 
gains. Find a remedy that does this. The current settlement does 
not.
    Bob Armstrong
    Compaq Computer Corp.



MTC-00016494

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Per the following link: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/, I believe 
the the proposed settlement is not in the best interests of the 
public. As a software developer for more than 15 years, would like 
to see an open API for the Windows operating system. This would 
allow software to be developed in a truly competitive environment 
(both operating systems and applications).
    My favorite computer book of all time is the ``Advanced 
Programming in the Unix Environment'' by Stevens. This book 
enumerated the Unix APIs and allowed many developers to see into the 
API and develop their own applications. It is a shame that a similar 
book does not exist for the Windows Operating system. The Java 
programming language is predicated on a ``virtual 
machine''. Having an open API for all machines would make the 
need for JAVA less (and that is a huge segment of the software 
development community).
    Sincerely,
    Russell Ritenour



MTC-00016495

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to correct Microsoft's previous actions.
    There are no provisions that correct or redress their previous 
abuses. They only prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. 
This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a 
person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from 
those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general. While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is 
well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Lee Semel



MTC-00016496

From: Marcus I. Ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will not attempt a point-by-point refute of the agreement, as 
people much more articulate than I am have already submitted 
detailed comments such as:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    I would, however, like to say that I don't believe the 
settlement penalizes Microsoft in any SIGNIFICANT way, and more 
importantly does nothing to restore competition. Yes, there are 
penalties and inconveniences in the agreement, but none force 
Microsoft to behave in a way more appropriate to a corporate leader 
and ``innovator'' in the field of computing. Instead they 
are still allowed to buy out, undersell, or basically destroy anyone 
who tries to compete. Without competition they still hold too much 
power over their customers and the market as a whole. In this 
situation everyone but Microsoft suffers. Most applications are 
written for Windows-it is a popular and very usable operating 
system. However, because it is exclusively available through 
Microsoft, anyone that wishes to run Windows software MUST by a 
Microsoft operating system. It is difficult at best to run more than 
one operating system on a computer, so competitive software is 
nudged out of the market. With less competition, they gain more 
power; with more power they overpower more competitors, and the 
cycle continues.
    Are there better solutions? Many, but I think two major changes 
in Microsoft's business practices need to be mandated:
    (1) They need to be restricted from charging customers and 
resellers as though Windows is installed on any machine that can run 
Windows- why would people run a competing product if they have 
to pay for the Microsoft product anyway? Also, this way if they do 
run a competing product, and it gains popularity, Microsoft still 
makes money on a product it had nothing to do with developing.
    (2) They need to be forced to provide all Application 
Programming Interfaces and patent rights needed to allow other 
operating systems to build their own emulators of Microsoft 
software. The idea is that the companies and organizations 
(including Linux, FreeBSD, and other free projects) would be able to 
develop API translators, so they, too, can run Windows software.

[[Page 26263]]

Microsoft wouldn't have to provide an implementation, simply a 
document that says ``here are all the calls programs can make, 
and here is the expected behavior''. Each competitor would be 
responsible for their own implementation. This way Microsoft could 
legitimately maintain their market position by being the best 
implementation-the fastest, easiest to use, most secure, 
etc.-without making it impossible for other competitors to do 
a better job than Microsoft.
    I think Microsoft was, many years ago, quite an innovative 
company. I used to be thrilled at each new release of every 
Microsoft product because they included many new features that I 
needed and would use. Over the last decade they have lost that 
innovative spirit.
    Each revision of their products looks nicer, but appearance is 
more art and advertising than innovation. They add many new features 
to their products each revision, but how many of these were original 
ideas on the part of Microsoft? I can't think of a feature Microsoft 
has developed and actually released in a product in the last five 
years that they didn't buy, license, or borrow from a competitor or 
partner.
    They have gotten lazy because they don't need to work hard 
anymore. They can buy any idea, code, or company they like. If the 
creator or innovator won't sell the idea or their company, Microsoft 
can throw literally billions of dollars and making the idea theirs 
or nobody's through litigation, reverse engineering, or marketing 
practices.
    In summary, Microsoft controls such a vast portion of the 
market, and has such enormous cash reserves and revenues it can 
survive and maintain its power through little technical effort of 
its own. Without government-mandated restrictions on their predatory 
behavior, they will never be forced to innovate on their own again. 
They can continue to be lazy, and keep others from releasing their 
own innovations, and in that market, no one but Microsoft (and their 
lawyers) benefit.
    Marcus I. Ryan, M.S.
    Computer Engieer & Network/Security Administrator
    Ames, IA 50010



MTC-00016497

From: Andre Ervin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a Macintosh user since 1986. (I also use Windows on a 
regular basis at work.) I feel that my computing experience (on both 
platforms) has been severely impacted numerous times by Microsoft's 
anti-competitiveness. I think the current settlement as it stands is 
toothless, gutless, and most importantly, ineffective as a solution. 
Since so much of the taxpayers'' money has been tied up in 
pursuing this case, I would think that anything less than major 
sanctions on Microsoft similar to the AT&T solution would be a 
waste of said money. As a guideline to a more effective settlement, 
I would suggest using the following documents as a guideline:
    * http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    * http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/
index.html
    * http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-
002-20-OP-MS
    As a Mac user, I would be remiss if I did not also suggest the 
following:
    Microsoft should be required to continue developing current and 
future applications for the Macintosh platform These applications 
*must* have *feature parity* and *same-time availability* with the 
Windows versions. Features that require proprietary solutions should 
use an approximate equivalent already on the Macintosh platform 
Microsoft should also be required to prominently display the cross-
platform interoperability of these apps on their website, any ads, 
and on shrink-wrapped boxes It would be a start.
    Thank you for your time,
    Andre Ervin



MTC-00016498

From: Andy Richardson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement. I have been a 
shareholder of Microsoft stock, and I support their desire to 
integrate additional functions into Windows (web browser and other 
internet-aware apps), but their business practices are unethical.
    Specifically, I feel that MS should not be able to require 
computer manufacturers to bundle a copy of Windows on all their 
computers. For instance, if I want to purchase a Dell PC and run 
Linux rather than Windows, I basically have to buy Windows and pay 
for software that I never use. The argument is that a computer sold 
without a copy of Windows is simply going to have a pirated copy of 
Windows installed, but a significant number of people would prefer 
to run Linux. Their choice is voided by Microsoft's force of will. 
Dell would be in serious trouble with MS if they sold me a computer 
with no operating system installed, and MS would also oppose any 
effort by Dell to sell me a computer with Linux preinstalled.
    I also feel that data file formats in apps like word processors 
and spreadsheets are arbitrarily changed from version to version. 
This is a form of planned obsolescence that forces users to upgrade 
their software every 18-24 months. You can't even choose an 
older version and stick with it because the older version is 
typically not available for purchase when the new version comes out. 
That is especially true if you purchase a new computer and attempt 
to buy software preinstalled by the manufacturer.
    Lastly, MS frequently adopts industry standards and proceeds to 
change them to the point that they are proprietary to MS. For 
instance, Java, Kerberos authentication, web browser standards for 
viewing HTML, and the list goes on.
    Please take considerations like the above into account before 
settling this case. A settlement is preferable to a court-ordered 
breakup, but the settlement has to advance the interests of the 
typical consumer, business owner, and it has to level the playing 
field within the software business.
    Thanks,
    Andy Richardson
    Network Manager/Information Security Officer
    Key Financial Systems
    5770 Roosevelt Blvd.
    Bldg. 410
    Clearwater, FL 33760
    (727) 524-8410x216



MTC-00016499

From: Robin Dowell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am submitting this comment, as permitted by the Tunney act, 
regarding the remedies proposed as the outcome of the Microsoft 
Antitrust trial. As an engineer in training, I must work with non-
Microsoft operating systems and products every day. The proprietary 
and ever-changing FILE FORMATS used by Microsoft, however, make even 
the exchange of simple text files between Microsoft and non-
Microsoft programs incredibly cumbersome. Any proposed Microsoft 
remedy which does not include the absolute requirement for openly 
published data file formats falls far short of the required public 
benefit.
    On the day-to-day office work level, it is this intentional file 
format incompatibility which forces purchase of Microsoft products, 
and further, it is the artificial incompatibility BETWEEN VERSIONS 
OF THE SAME MICROSOFT PRODUCT which forces purchase of ever newer 
Microsoft products, even though they frequently ADD NO RELEVANT 
FUNCTIONALITY over the older product. Publicly available Microsoft 
file format specifications would allow third-party developers to 
produce file conversion tools which completely obviate this unfair 
Microsoft practice.
    Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this judgment.
    Robin Dowell
    Biomedical Engineering
    Surface Mail:
    c/o The Eddy Lab
    Washington University, Dept. of Genetics Phone: 314.747.8207
    4566 Scott Ave, Box 8232 St. Louis, MO 63110 Fax: 314.362.7855



MTC-00016500

From: Rob Elshire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, I am opposed to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed 
settlement does not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft 
in the past, nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in 
the future.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for

[[Page 26264]]

settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded. I 
believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the American 
public, deleterious to the American economy, and not adequate given 
the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition. 
The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Sincerely yours,
    Robert J. Elshire



MTC-00016501

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft would let them 
get off with less than a slap on the wrist. I think the proposed 
settlement is a very bad idea.



MTC-00016502

From: Kerner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. There are several faults with the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I will list these faults as well as a brief 
discusson of why the fault is important to me as an independent 
software developer (I speak here both for myself, my company, and my 
staff).
    1. The settlement requires Microsoft to publish its secret APIs, 
but it does not provide a definition of API that Microsoft must 
disclose all APIs. As a software developer we use the APIs on our 
target operating systems to make our software compatible. Our 
software runs on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS. The performance of our 
software on Windows is severely limited because of limited access to 
certain APIs. These secret APIs allow competing Microsoft software 
to outperform our offering on their platform.
    2. The settlement requires Microsoft to publish information, but 
allows Microsoft to determine to whom it distributes that 
information. Microsoft is given the ability to only publish 
information to viable companies as defined by Microsoft. Previous 
Microsoft activities would show they will limit the definition of a 
viable company as much as possible. My company, which provides 
Internet education tools, has a limited, but profitable, operating 
history. Because of our limited history we would most likely be 
excluded from any Microsoft defined list of viable companies.
    3. The settlement applies to Windows, but it defines Windows in 
such a way that Windows XP, Windows CE, Pocket PC, and the X-Box 
(all of which use the Win32 API and are advertized as being 
``Windows Powered'') are not included. It is important 
that Microsoft is not able to continue their monopolistic abuses on 
other platforms. Under the proposed settlement all Microsoft must do 
is migrate users to a new platform. This new platform does not 
represent a substantial change from the previous Windows platforms 
except that they are not included in the settlement.
    4. The settlement fails to prohibit anticompetitive license 
terms currently used by Microsoft.
    Many Microsoft tools are provided to developers in such a way 
that restricts use of those tools with Open Source Software. Our 
products rely on Open Source middleware. In order to provide a good 
user experience on Windows certain Microsoft tools are required. 
Microsoft's licensing structure for those tools prohibits us from 
distributing them solely because of our association with Open Source 
Software. The core platform for our application is Linux. 
Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (which are used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers that could run a Microsoft operating system, not by the 
number of computers actually running a Microsoft operating system. 
This means that our larger clients must pay a Microsoft license on a 
computer running the Linux operating system for our software. This 
type of license was banned for OEMs by the 1994 consent decree, 
however it remains in place for Microsoft enterprise licensing.
    5. The settlement as written appears to lack any type of 
enforcement mechanism. The settlement calls for the creation of a 
Technical Committee, yet this committee seems to have no real power 
over Microsoft activities. The core enforcement of the settlement is 
left to the judicial system. As Microsoft has proven in the past 
(the 1994 consent decree), they are unwilling to behave in a manner 
that does not abuse their monopoly position. The current enforcement 
mechanism allows Microsoft to behave as it sees fit until further 
judicial intervention is taken. While this list of shortcomings in 
the proposed Microsoft settlement is in no way complete, it does 
clearly illustrate areas where the settlement is not in the public 
interest. The settlement continues to allow Microsoft to define the 
terms under which it operates, terms that will allow it to 
continually abuse its monopoly status. We cannot allow a confirmed, 
abusive monopolist to dictate its own terms for this settlement. 
These practices will not be resolved by the proposed settlement and 
as such leave software vendors, OEMs, and our customers to fend for 
ourselves against Microsoft. The proposed settlement allows 
Microsoft to receive a slap on the wrist as the judicial system 
looks the other way.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Kerner
    President, Educara Software Corporation
    Educara Software Corporation
    573-442-3936



MTC-00016503

From: Marc W. Pound
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: I am opposed to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust trial. The current proposed settlement 
does not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the 
past, nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the 
future. Please consider this a vote against the current settlement, 
as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to 
Microsoft's competitors.
    Marc Pound
    College Park, MD



MTC-00016504

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is NOT an acceptable solution 
to the blatant predatory business practices currently used by 
Microsoft Corp. Any real solution MUST force a clear and distinct 
separation between any company offering the operating system used on 
such a large majority of machines and that providing the 
applications used on those machines. Any other option puts Microsoft 
right back in the same monopolizing position giving them free reign 
to crush opposition and stifle innovation with impunity.
    JG
    [email protected]



MTC-00016505

From: Gregory R.Warnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement Unacceptable
    The proposed settlement betweent the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft does not adequetly address the anti-competitive behavior 
outlined in the findings of fact. In particular, it does not 
effectively remove barriers to competing operating systems and 
software products, nor does it deny microsoft the benefits of its 
monopolistic activity. I believe that several fundimental changes 
must be made to the proposed settlement before it would be 
effective. Below I have attempted to capture a minumum set of 
behavioral requirements that would prohibit offending anti-
competitive behavior, remove barriers to entry, and encourage 
competition in the operating system, middleware, and applications 
software markets. 
    Definitions: A Dominant Software Product is any microsoft 
software product with 25% or more market share. An Applications

[[Page 26265]]

Programming Interface (API) shall be the function names, addresses, 
parameter lists, storage, communications formats, timings an all 
other details necessary to for one software component to interact 
with another.
    Settlement or Ruling Conditions
    1. API's
    Requirement: -All- API's used to communicate between 
or with any Microsoft operating system, middleware product, or 
Dominant Software Product must be fully and completely disclosed 
without restrictions on use 6 months -prior- to the 
final beta release of the product. If a product becomes a Dominant 
Software Product, said documentation must be provided within 6 
months of gaining 25% or more market share.
    Remedy: Any product with APIs that are not documented in this 
way shall be prohibited from (further) general distribution and from 
sale.
    2. File Formats
    Requirement: All file formats for Microsoft Dominant Software 
Products must be fully and completely disclosed without restrictions 
on use 6 months -prior- to the final beta release of the 
product. If a product becomes a Dominant Software Product, said 
documentation must be provided within 6 months of gaining 25% or 
more market share.
    Remedy: Any product with APIs that are not documented in this 
way shall be prohibited from (further) general distribution and from 
sale.
    #3: Patents
    Requirements: Any and all patents (regardless of filing status) 
required to use, interact with, emulate, or implement a competing 
operating system, middleware product, or Dominant Software Product 
must be fully disclosed and documented by providing the specific 
services, APIs, file formats, or features effected 6 months 
-prior- to the final beta release of the product.
    Remedy: A perpetual royalty free license to any requesting 
organization shall be granted for any and all patents that are not 
documented in this way.
    #4: Licensing Fees
    Requirement: A uniform license pricing scheme for operating 
systems, middleware, and Dominant Software Products, based solely on 
the number of licenses and sales location (country, state, etc) 
should be applied to all purchasers, whether OEM, corporate, or 
individual. Discounting schemes based on customer behavior, 
including but not limited to bundling of other Microsoft products 
and supporting non-microsoft products, are be explicitly forbidden. 
Further, the exact licensing terms shall be made publicly available 
at least 6 weeks prior to the date when they may be applied and once 
applied must remain fixed for a term of not less than 6 weeks.
    Remedy: All sales of software products without a published 
license pricing scheme meeting these requirements shall be 
prohibited from general distribution and from sale.
    Gregory R. Warnes, Ph.D.
    The views expressed in this email are strictly my own and are 
independent of those of my employer.



MTC-00016506

From: Rick Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern;
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    In addition, the remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement 
specifically protect only companies in commerce, that is, 
organizations in business for profit. However, Microsoft's greatest 
single competitor on the operating system front comes from Linux, a 
non-commercial product. The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet 
Information Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache 
Foundation, another not-for-profit. Yet not-for-profit organizations 
have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. According to 
Section III(J)(2), Microsoft is not compelled to disclose or license 
API, documentation, or communications protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet 
Microsoft's criteria as a business. Therefore Microsoft has the 
ability under this settlement to deny information to any non-profit 
competitor, and thus the settlement will actually increase 
Microsoft's unlawful monopoly.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Richard C. Mason
    809 Meadow Ln SW
    Vienna, VA 22180



MTC-00016507

From: Kevin Fitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement does not go nearly far 
enough to remedy the immense irreperable damage done to the computer 
industry by Microsoft. In particular I feel that the settlement does 
not go nearly far enough at allowing independent software companies 
to produce products that can compete fairly with those made be 
Microsoft.
    In order for independent software companies to compete they must 
be able to interoperate (with -both- the OS and other 
software) as well as Microsoft produced products can. This requires 
full upfront knowledge of numerous API's -AND- file 
formats. In particular the settlement makes no mention of 
documenting such things as Microsft Office file formats. It is an 
unfortunate reality that the Microsoft Word format has become a 
defacto standard for exchanging documents electronically. As a 
result every office needs at least one copy of Microsoft Word (in 
order to deal with .doc files they recieve), and since for most 
offices it is unreasonable to purchase/upgrade/maintain multiple 
office suites Microsoft operating systems become a near necesity to 
run an office in today's society. There other file formats that are 
vendor neutral (Postscript, PDF, RTF, HTML), but of course all of 
these are either poorly supported on Microsoft Operating Systems or 
have been curupted (with ``Extensions'') by Microsoft in 
order to be less vendor neutral, and so they again will only be 
guarenteed to work on Microsoft Products.
    Also the settlement very narrowly defines which APIs need to be 
diclosed and when they need to be disclosed. Microsoft only needs to 
disclose APIs used by the products currently defined as middleware. 
This would allow Microsoft to expand into a new area creating an 
expansion of their monopoly without having to disclose any of the 
APIs involved.
    Kevin Fitch



MTC-00016508

From: Victor Marks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is fraught with problems. I am 
absolutely against the settlement as proposed. The settlement is 
little more than a slap on the wrist to a company that knows no 
bounds which it will respect.
    Thank you,
    Victor Marks
    Raleigh NC, 27609



MTC-00016509

From: MEDBERRY,DAVID (A-Loveland,ex1)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is ineffective. The punitive portions 
are virtually non-existent-Microsoft is being rewarded for 
it's bad behavior by getting in-roads at the primary and secondary 
school level. This is historically not their market. Giving it to 
them is a reward, not a punishment. The other aspect of the 
settlement, on-site observers, is not an effective deterrent. No 
one, no three, no twenty people would be sufficient to monitor 
software development and business tactics in a corporation the size 
of Microsoft. I'm not sure ``observation'' is a good plan. 
Why not rely on external businesses, conscientious Microsoft 
employees, and the press to identify any violations of the terms of 
the agreement. A ``whistle blower'' type of approach (both 
internally and externally) would be a better solution.
    Another option, apparently thrown out by the Justice Department 
and the current administration, would be to break up Microsoft. This 
would certainly serve as an example, punitive, and also a 
preventative for at least a portion of the newly created companies.
    David Medberry
    Software Engineer
    4331 Sweetgrass Dr
    Loveland, CO 80537



MTC-00016510

From: tim lindner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the purposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I think 
the company should be split in two: One company to create operating 
systems and applications. One company to create development tools.

[[Page 26266]]

    tim lindner
    ``Life. Don't talk to me about life.''-Marvin, 
the android



MTC-00016511

From: Dan Nuffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a software engineer and am familiar with computing and the 
computer industry, and the adverse effects of Microsoft's monopolies 
in these areas. I cannot see how the proposed settlement to the 
antitrust case even pretends to remedy the antitrust violations for 
which Microsoft has been found culpable.
    The company has already been found guilty. This is the penalty 
phase of the case, but the settlement contains no penalties and 
actually advances Microsoft's operating system monopoly. I think 
that a just penalty would enforce the following:
-Microsoft must sell their products for the same price to all 
OEM customers. They must not be allowed to punish OEMs who sell or 
bundle competitive microsoft software. Microsoft must sell their 
products to any OEM who wants to purchase their products.
-Microsoft must allow OEMs to install non-Microsoft software 
such as Netscape Navigator or Red Hat Linux on computer systems.
-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 
any operating system.
-Microsoft must completely document 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.
-Microsoft must sell their products at a fair price. As is 
obvious by the amount of money they have in reserve, they have been 
severly overcharging consumers. Their prices are greatly inflated in 
relation to their competitors. For example, Microsoft Office costs 
many time more than WordPerfect Office does, and Windows XP costs 
much more than Red Hat Linux does. This is only possible because 
they are taking advantage of their monopoly status. If Microsoft 
products were not the de-facto standard, no one would buy them, 
because they are so expensive.
-As much as possible, Microsoft must send refunds to all 
customers who have been overcharged because of Microsoft's 
exploitation of their monopoly.
    Respectfully yours,
    Daniel C. Nuffer



MTC-00016512

From: Lamar Prosser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea.
    Lamar Prosser
    IT Coordinator
    Center for Health Care Research at MUSC
    Department of Neurological Surgery
    Ext: 6-1206



MTC-00016513

From: David Pereverzoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop Microsoft from taking over more of our great country 
(and the rest of the world).
    I am particularly concerned about their recent monopoly 
expansion into the future of HDTV DVD encoding that has recently 
been included in 90% of the new chips.
    Not to mention their strangle hold on the Operating system and 
desktop application market.
    Thank you
    David Pereverzoff



MTC-00016514

From: Scott Ricketts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    My name is Scott Ricketts, I am a 13-year veteran of the United 
States Air Force, now a civilian, and I would like to comment on the 
ongoing proceedings in the United States vs. Microsoft remedy phase 
now underway.
    I would like to begin, by saying that I have a Bachelor of 
Science degree in Information Systems Technology, I have been a 
computer user since 1982, and a personal computer enthusiast since 
1992. I am currently employed as computer professional, and the 
majority of my work involves using and designing programs for use on 
Microsoft operating systems and development platforms.
    I would first like to comment on, what I believe, the good that 
Microsoft has done for the personal computing industry. Microsoft 
has successfully created standard Application Programming Interfaces 
that have allows software and hardware makers alike to create 
devices and programs that can easily and successfully interface with 
devices created by other programmers and designers without ever 
seeing or touching the other persons work. I feel this 
standardization is what helped the personal computing industry 
become the giant economic and social force that it is today.
    However, in creating these standards, I believe that Microsoft 
has overreached the bounds of common decency and abused the defacto 
standards they helped create. Previously, the United States settled 
with Microsoft in regards to their practice of Original Equipment 
Manufacturer licensing fees and contracts and the bundling of 
Internet browsing software designed to increase the market share and 
adoption of Microsoft proprietary technology. This was to prevent 
what the United States government saw as Microsofts abusing of its 
monopoly among personal computer operating systems and productivity 
software.
    The years since that settlement have seen Microsoft grow in its 
demands towards Original Equipment Manufacturer and the recent 
exclusion of non-Microsoft Internet browsers from Microsoft 
websites. In my opinion, this does not reflect the behavior of a 
company that understands its duty to not abuse its position as a 
monopoly. In reading both proposed settlements from the Department 
of Justice and the remaining states, I feel that while neither goes 
to the lengths that I would recommend, the states proposal goes much 
father in the right direction in reaching a state whereby Microsofts 
position cannot be leveraged against any potential competitors 
again. The Department of Justice settlement has, to my mind, a major 
flaw that prevents it from being considered as an acceptable remedy. 
Microsoft has shown, by its conduct regarding the previous 
settlement, and its behavior that was upheld by the appeals court 
which branded Microsoft an illegal monopoly, that it will, whenever 
possible, circumvent rules, laws, and any barriers that prevent it 
from controlling its areas of interest. There are no provisions for 
actually punishing past or future infractions of the law by 
Microsoft. If Microsoft continues to abuse its position as an 
illegal monopoly, the Justice Departments remedy merely lengthens 
the term of surveillance. The states settlement, however, provides a 
very exacting and appropriate punishment: disclosure of computer 
source code for the offending program. This would be an extremely 
painful measure for Microsoft, as they view their copyrighted and 
closely guarded computer source code as their crown jewels: very 
simply this is how they generate revenue. If that revenue stream is 
blocked, or they are forced to reveal how their programs work, that 
opens a new area for competition.
    Microsoft has shown repeated contempt for legal agreements, 
hiring armies of legal minds to comb over documents trying to find 
potential weak areas. In 1996, when Netscape Navigator was the 
number one Internet browser, Microsoft signed a licensing agreement 
with a company called Spyglass. In exchange for a small sum of money 
upfront and a portion of each sale, Microsoft would receive the 
computer source code for Spyglass Internet browser. This would allow 
Microsoft to quickly get a functional and full-featured browser into 
the marketplace without a lengthy development delay. However, the 
anticipated revenue stream Spyglass expected never arrived. Why? 
Because Microsoft chose not to sell their Internet browser, they 
gave it away for free. This allowed them to not pay further 
royalties to Spyglass, achieve quick market penetration for their 
product, which they could then use to leverage their proprietary 
technologies (such as ActiveX) into defacto standards. This deal, I 
think, creates a very compelling picture of Microsofts corporate 
character. In an interview regarding past dealings with Utah-based 
software company Novell, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer smugly 
commented They made a mistake, they trusted us. I am writing this 
letter in the

[[Page 26267]]

hopes that my government does not make the same mistake that Novell 
did. Any settlement must contain explicit, detailed language that 
leaves no room for ambiguity, and exacting, painful punishment for 
future and past infractions.
    Thank you for time.
    Scott Ricketts
    17 N. Sherry Lane
    Bellevue, KY 41073
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00016515

From: Christopher Blake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Similar to the settlement against 
AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, 
until its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for 
example, assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). This 
must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is 
lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Christopher M. Blake, New Jersey



MTC-00016516

From: Todd Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear USDOJ, Please count me against the Microsoft Settlement. I 
do not feel that the Microsoft Settlement is an appropriate remedy. 
Microsoft needs far more punitive damages to prevent them from 
continuing their illegal, monopolistic business practices.'' I 
am the person responsible for computer hardware and software 
purchasing decisions-and support-for our small company. 
I feel most frustrated with the poor quality of Microsoft software 
and windows software in general. I don't really have much of a 
choice of software to use considering Microsoft's monopoly.
    Respectfully, 
    -Todd



MTC-00016517

From: Glenn Crocker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
(under the Tunney Act).
    As a computer professional and entrepreneur, I have been 
involved directly with Microsoft as a partner, party to non-
disclosure agreements, and competitor. I?ve seen first-hand the ways 
the company abuses its monopoly position in the Operating System 
market. In general, the proposed settlement does a few things wrong:
    1. Remedies are insufficient
    2. Prohibitions on future behavior are insufficient
    3. Mistakes of the past are repeated
    In one section of the proposed settlement, Section III.B., there 
are a number of ?loopholes? that remove the teeth from the 
agreement. Specificially, Microsoft must license Windows on uniform 
and published terms to the top 20 OEMs, but smaller OEMs can be 
punished at Microsoft's sole option. In view of Microsoft's history 
of doing just this, it would seem that this section is flawed, 
insufficient, and toothless. Further, III.B. allows Microsoft to 
continue its blatantly illegal ?tying? of other products to its 
monopoly! By allowing Market Development Allowances, the settlement 
provides exactly the tool Microsoft needs to tie future products to 
the Operating System.
    One last OEM-related comment: Section III.A.2. allows 
retaliation against OEMs that sell Personal Computers that do not 
include a Microsoft operating system. Clearly, this is intended to 
prevent lower-priced operating systems like Linux from gaining a 
foothold in the US the way they are in Europe and Asia.
    -glenn
    Glenn Crocker
    12337 Horton St.
    Overland Park, KS 66209
    Netmud http://www.netmud.com
    913-451-7785, [email protected]



MTC-00016518

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to log my opinion about the Proposed Final Judgement 
(PFJ) in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust trial. My name is 
Mario D. Santana. I have been writing software for Windows, Unix, 
Macintosh and other operating systems for 18 years. I am a US 
citizen registered to vote in Florida.
    I believe that many provisions in the PFJ would be ineffective 
in achieving the stated goals of the PFJ. In my opinion, the main 
flaw is the lack of provisions guarding against predatory license 
practices. These practices leverage Microsoft's monopolies to force 
other businesses such as OEMs and ISVs to use Microsoft products and 
enhance Microsoft's monopolies still further. There are other flaws, 
such as the very narrow definitions of various key terms.
    Time constraints prevent me from restating all the relevant 
technical and historical facts. These are available all over the 
internet, see for example Dan Kegel's excellent collection of 
resources at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
    Microsoft has abused rights protected by the Constitution and 
statutes of the United States, rights meant to benefit the public by 
protecting innovation. I hope changes are made to the PFJ to give 
back to the public the fruits of that abuse, and to keep such abuses 
from happening in the future.
    Yours,
    Mario D. Santana
    819 E. 35 St.
    Hialeah, FL 33013



MTC-00016519

From: Andrew W Potter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please add my voice to those who are dissatisfied with the 
proposed government settlement with Microsoft.
    In my mind it is bad because:
-It allows Microsoft to continue its practice to consume 
software technologies into the ever increasing maw known as Windows. 
Browsers, performance utilities, now firewalls and virus scanner 
companies are all at risk of extinction because of Microsoft's 
activities. Remember, this will lead to less incentive to innovate 
and less diversity in the software environment.
-The ``education'' settlement is a major slap 
against the one small market place Apple computer has a nontrivial 
market share. By encouraging the cost sensitive education market to 
take huge numbers of ``free'' Microsoft based computing 
systems, Apple will quickly lose what tiny market share they have 
been able to garner in education. Perhaps an alternative would be to 
require Microsoft to purchase Apple computers for education.
-Microsoft's legal strategy is to delay, obfuscate and then 
when public attention has diminished, negotiate a favorable 
settlement. With the billions they have invested in their legal 
department, they have far more resources than any competitor could 
hope to have. The Justice department is the last hope at re-
establishing a fair playing field. Please reverse this terrible 
settlement and break Microsoft up into smaller companies that can 
give the software industry the competitive spirt it needs to 
jumpstart the stalled Internet revolution.
    Andrew W. Potter
    Network Architect, Infrastructure Services Delivery & 
Support
    IBM Global Services-Network Services
    1630 Long Pond Road, Rochester NY 14626
    (716) 720-7116/TIE 433-7116
    FAX 720-7655
    Pager: 1-800-SKY-8888: Pin: 1785972; Email 
Subject: [email protected]



MTC-00016520

From: Jason Dujardin-Terry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: It is my opinion that the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft would be a BAD idea. I pledge full protest 
of the proposed settlement. I trust that the United States 
Government will hear the voice of the people and act on our behalf.
    Thank You,
    Jason Dujardin-Terry



MTC-00016521

From: Marc Allen
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26268]]

Date: 1/23/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear fellow American,
    I am writing this to voice my absolute amazement that my 
government it planning to settle this lawsuit with Microsoft. I have 
been a member of the community affected by microsoft's draconian 
practices for 15 years. I have watched them illegally destroy 
technologies which would have benefited myself and millions of 
others. The most notable of these being the Netscape web browser 
(believe me it is dead. It would take an act of god to bring it's 
market share back to where it was when what mattered was quality). 
If you need a simple current example just examine the way they are 
hamstringing their ``windows media player'' into windows 
XP in such a way that makes it highly cumbersome to use any of their 
competitors products. Thank you for your attention.
    Attentively;
    Marc Allen



MTC-00016522

From: Alan Hecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to inform you of my opion re: the pending Microsoft 
settlement. The historical-as well as antitrust-history 
with Microsoft is glaring clear: they have used every tactic at 
their disposal to gain an unfair advantage in their market space; 
indeed, through dominance in the computer software marketspace, they 
have begun to expand out of their initial space and take on other 
markets (media (MSNBC, video game consoles, etc.). They have also 
flagrantly delayed and dragged their feet against the federal 
government *during the anitrust proceedings*; to expect that they 
will suddenly come into compliance with any verdict that they do not 
deem meets their liking without a significant amount of oversight 
and strict, severe (read: large monetary) penalties for violation of 
any infractions is naive in the extreme.
    In addition, the inability of the federal government to bring 
any entity under its governance into compliance with laws, statutes 
and verdicts handed to said entitiy will be perceived by all astute 
entities (be they individuals, corporations, other governments, 
etc.) as a weakness and an opportunity to take advantage of the 
United States the way that Microsoft has done. The setting of such a 
precedent, especially in the current social, economic and political 
climate of today's world, could do inestimal damage to the United 
States. I realize that Microsoft is a corporate entity like none 
other in history; it has shown the largest profit, the largest 
growth and the largest abuse of its position and power of any 
corporation in history. However, it is still a corporation like any 
other in the coutry. The antitrust laws, as they are on the books 
today, still apply to it. Microsoft has unfairly gained advantage 
over competition and, in turn, used this edge it created to further 
its dominance over the market. As it gains speed, as it expands 
further and further out from the base of software development and 
Operating Systems, it threatens to bring its strong-arm tactics to 
other areas. The threats to innovation-and to say that 
innovation, in a capital economy, must perish because those who 
innovate can't compete with a barrelling juggernaut is a specious 
argument at best-and competition are real and large. 
Ultimately, the consumer pays the highest price: expensive, single-
source software (and now hardware and media options) that only allow 
for what Microsoft decides is good for itself. This kind of future 
is specifically what the antitrust laws were put in place to 
prevent. If there was innovation, fair competition and a variety of 
choice in the software industry, there would be no need of antitrust 
proceedings or a judgement against Microsoft; market forces and 
competitor vying for consumers would shape the outcome. This is how 
it was in the 1980s, but that was about the last time there was that 
level of real capital competition.
    In closing, I believe that only by forcing Microsoft to submit 
to stringent, rigorous monitoring and being subject to real, stiff 
and enforced penalties will fair market forces be able to once again 
reign in the software industry. Microsoft must be made to fully 
describe and open its Windows API and fully disclose the format of 
its Office suite of products. This would foster faster and stiffer 
competition than would splitting the company into parts. The 
Findings of Fact have not been disputed. Microsoft is a monopoly, 
possibly the largest and fiercest one this country has ever 
encountered. To treat it as anything but such is folly and is folly 
that ultimately plays itself out on the United States government as 
a whole and the consumer, who is ultimately the benefactor of 
antitrust protection.
    - Alan Hecker
    ``Never send a Monster to do the work of an Evil 
Scientist.''



MTC-00016523

From: Bill Hay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir, I am writing to you with regard to the Proposed 
Settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case. Although I am a US 
Citizen I live in Britain and as such I am rarely concerned with the 
details of the US government and justice system. However the outcome 
of this action affects me here in Britain as Microsoft's monopoly is 
extant throughout most of the free world.
    As a computer professional I am familiar with the practical 
means by which Microsoft has abused its monopoly power to crush the 
competition. Having examined the proposed judgement I do not think 
it will provide sufficient restraint on Microsoft's Conduct to 
prevent it from abusing its position.
    In order to allow other companies, groups or individuals to 
compete fairly against Microsoft they need access to details of the 
currently undocumented APIs, network protocols and file formats that 
Microsoft uses. Companies that are not monopolies do not benefit 
from concealing this information as evidenced by the far more 
liberal distribution of such information by Microsoft when its 
monopoly was less complete. With the advent of the internet and 
print-on-demand technologies providing this information without 
restriction to all who might want it can be done cheaply and 
efficiently.
    The proposed judgement:
    i) Does not require disclosure of file formats.
    ii) Greatly restricts the APIs which must be disclosed and the 
purposes for which this information can be used.
    iii) Leaves the disclosure of network protocols subject to an 
unspecified license on ``reasonable terms''. There are few 
bodies other than the US government with the resources to litigate 
whether a Microsoft license is reasonable. The proposed judgement 
should be revised to ensure that details of all APIs, file formats 
and network protocols are available for use by competitors, both 
commercial and non-commercial, both open-source and closed source.
    Yours Sincerely
    William S Hay



MTC-00016525

From: Michael P. Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement is not good. It does not take 
into account Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
    -Michael Jones
    Ruckersville, VA



MTC-00016526

From: Nicholas Perez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27am
Subject: Why I think the Proposed Settlement is Wrong.
    Perhaps I am going out on a limb here, but with a convicted 
monopolist why are you even considering listening to their 
``proposal'' for a ``settlement''. Would you 
listen to a murderer talk about restrictions on his daily life in 
the hopes of not getting the chair? It is painfully clear that the 
judge should simply ignore anything that comes from the convicted 
monopolist, and develope her own remedies that seek to punish 
Microsoft for it's ill gotten gains. Suppose the Microsoft 
settlement is accepted, does microsoft lose any of the 
-billions- of dollars it has gained from breaking the 
law?? Does microsoft retain its market position as a monopoly that 
has stiffled innovation and bullied other competing businesses? A 
convicted criminal would say or do anything to get his sentence 
reduced, even lie, cheat, or threaten the court. I simply do not see 
the ``proposed remedy'' being a remedy any more than one 
inch bandaid being a proper dressing for a deep bleeding gash. As a 
law abiding, tax paying citizen, I strongly oppose my tax dollars 
being -wasted- on such an endeavor as this proposed 
settlement. That is all.
    Nicholas Perez
    303.871.5446
    Denver University
    1901 E. Illif Ave.
    Denver, CO

[[Page 26269]]

    80210



MTC-00016527

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:26am
    I wish to raise my objections to the Proposed Final Judgement in 
United States v. Microsoft. There are many areas that the proposal 
fails to protect the public and the computer hardware and software 
industry from the deliberate monopolistic practices of Microsoft. I 
wish to call the department's attention to http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html for a comprehensive analysis of the Proposed 
Final Judgement and it's inadequacies. For the sake of brevity, I 
shall make a statement to the necessity of a fair and open software 
market. To achieve a market that offers robust, secure, and 
innovative computer systems, both for the public at large and 
private industry, it is imperative that any agreements force 
Microsoft to cease practices that create artificial barriers for 
Independent Software Vendors. Microsoft should be prohibited from 
placing overly restrictive terms in licenses. For example, such 
terms should not disallow the distribution of Redistributable 
Components with applications targeted for Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA states, 
``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute ... the 
Redistributable Components... provided that (a) you distribute the 
Redistributable Components only in conjunction with and as a part of 
your Application solely for use with a Microsoft Operating System 
Product...'' This is an anti-competive practice and limits the 
public's choices when choosing an operating system to run on 
computer hardware they have purchased. Unless such restrictions are 
removed from Microsoft licensing, Microsoft will not find it 
necessary to compete in the operating system market on criteria of 
quality. The public will have no real choice, because of limited 
application software availability, but to continue to purchase 
Microsoft operating systems which for many years have been known for 
their instability and general poor quality. Such licensing terms 
restrict entry into the market and constitute an anti-competitive, 
monopolistic practice. It is only because of their monopoly that 
Microsoft can place such terms in their licenses without limiting 
the sales of their own products. Finally, I would alert the 
Departement of Justice to the inadequacy of the definitions within 
the Proposed Final Judgement. I am concerned that many of the 
definitions, eg the definitions of ``API'' and 
``middle ware,'' create loopholes in the agreement that 
will allow Microsoft to avoid even the limited prohibitions.
    Best regards,
    Jonathan Cole



MTC-00016528

From: Mark Saward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an Australian concerned with the current settlement in the 
Microsoft settlement. It seems to me that the company is not being 
punished anywhere near the level required to restore damages done. 
Not only that, it seems to be encouraging the opposite: any 
opposition badly damaged because of Microsoft's illegal actions are 
going to be finished off in this settlement which helps increase the 
monopoly of Microsoft.
    I am not sure why such a settlement could be proposed, and it 
seems to me insanely inadequate. The reason why I, an Australian, 
feel compelled to write is because the decisions that affect 
Microsoft today in America affect computing here in Australia 
immensely.
    Thank you for reading,
    Mark Saward



MTC-00016529

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done untold amounts of damage to the IT industry. 
They have driven many software companies out of business, and 
prevented many others from even starting due to fear of being 
attacked. This company was rightly convicted of being an illegal 
monopoly and if our industry is ever expected to grow in a secure 
and stable manner, something must be done. The settlement proposed 
does nothing to rectify this situation. There are many points that 
the proposed settlement falls short, but the most important is 
granting Microsoft the right to choose who should have access to 
their API set. The language in the settlement is so vague that 
Microsoft will more than likely continue to do business exactly as 
they are doing it now. Please consider that one company can not 
employ every technical worker out there. One company can not secure 
our nations most important infrastructure. Microsoft needs to have a 
settlement that will allow other companies to grow.
    Thank you,
    Chris Gamble
    2112 Pritchard
    Grapevine, TX 76051
    p: 817-410-7352



MTC-00016530

From: Robert Gomez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a network engineer, I feel that the proposed settlement 
doesn't go far enough. Microsoft has already formed a monopoly and 
the actions taken against it should focusing on breaking Microsoft's 
existing monopoly not just on preventing future problems. I would 
suggest either forcing Microsoft to aid it's former competitors or 
splitting Microsoft in to several pieces.
    Robert Gomez
    Senior Technical Analyst
    Neurosource
    515 North State Street, Suite 1700
    Chicago, IL 60610
    Phone: (312) 670-3944



MTC-00016531

From: Eric St. Onge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a very very 
bad idea. It has too many loopholes. In particular, why should 
Microsoft be allowed to change the desktop to whatever they please 
after 30 days of use? It seems like a joke.
    Thanks,
    eric



MTC-00016532

From: Ethan Ligon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I would to take advantage of the provisions of the Tunney Act to 
register an objection to the proposed Microsoft settlement. As an 
economist with an interest in antitrust issues, I regard the 
settlement's provisions regarding alternative operating systems with 
alarm--in particular, Microsoft is *not* forbidden from taking 
a variety of retaliatory actions against OEMs who ship machines pre-
loaded with an alternative operating system, or for that matter, 
without any operating system at all.
    My research involves considerable computation, and I have never 
used any version of Microsoft windows on any of the many computers 
I've purchased. Nonetheless, I have been compelled to pay for 
various versions of MS Windows, as Microsoft tends to compel system 
vendors to install MS Windows on all machines they ship.
    Sincerely,
    Ethan Ligon, Assoc. Professor
    Dept. of Agricultural & Resource Economics
    University of California 
    Berkeley, CA 94720-3310, (510)643-5411



MTC-00016534

From: Ken Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly against the proposed settlement between the DoJ 
and Microsoft. I am an IT professional who has, over the past 
several years, watched as Microsoft has bullied, coerced, and 
generally forced their products on the public. They have also 
bullied, coerced, and generally forced their products on the various 
OEM computer manufacturers. I have watched as Microsoft, using the 
huge financial resources available to them, bundled and given away 
their products as a method of effectively removing competition from 
the marketplace.
    I have watched as Microsoft has gobbled up competing companies, 
thereby destroying that company's product(s). I have watched as 
Microsoft has taken Public Domain standards and modified the 
technology of those standards, effectively making them proprietary. 
This can, and has, damaged interoperability between Microsoft 
systems and systems from competing vendors. I have cleaned up damage 
done to Microsoft products because the products are not, by design, 
secure. This has cost my customers large sums in my labor charges, 
as well as the cost of downtime during the cleanup.

[[Page 26270]]

Finally, and in yet another example of monopolistic behavior, 
Microsoft appears to be trying to slowly take control of the 
Internet (a public resource) and the public's dollars through its 
.NET initiative and Microsoft Passport.
    I strongly urge the court to reject the proposed settlement and 
take the necessary steps to break the stranglehold that Microsoft 
has on this industry.
    Ken Baker
    Ken Baker Consulting



MTC-00016535

From: Scott Milliken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my disagreement with the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. With the new licensing 
model that Microsoft has adopted with Windows XP, it is quite clear 
that their settlement proposal is merely an investment in future 
license renewals. What would seem like a windfall to the poorly 
financed school districts throughout the United States will turn 
into a recurring nightmare of license renewals for what was 
originally pitched as free software.
    Security is also of major concern here. It is a well documented 
fact that the majority of viruses are written specifically for 
Microsoft Windows operating systems and the bundled features within 
those operating systems. The settlement proposal does not address 
the need for a full time administrator to handle the constant virus 
scans and system updates that are part of the daily care and feeding 
of a Windows system.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Milliken



MTC-00016536

From: David Brickner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As allowed by the Tunney Act I am commenting upon the proposed 
settlement to the Microsoft Anti-Trust trial. I am opposed to the 
proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I feel that 
the current proposed settlement does not fully redress the actions 
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their ability to 
commit similar actions in the future. It has been ruled that 
Microsoft has an abusive monopoly and has performed anti-competitive 
behavior to the detriment of US corporations, US citizens and 
customers, and, by extension, the world market. These abuses drove 
such companies or products as Stac Compression, DR DOS, Netscape, 
WordPerfect, and Lotus SmartSuite out of business or to bare 
existence levels. There is nothing in the ruling that compensates 
these companies, or their customers, for the price gouging and loss 
of innovation that Microsoft's actions have caused. Specifically, 
why is it that the cost of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office 
Suite are rising at the same time that hardware prices have dropped 
to commodity levels? Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, and IBM are all 
competitors for our hardware dollar and they get that dollar with 
quality products, low prices, and excellent service. Microsoft, in 
their monopoly position, uses proprietary formats that do not allow 
for direct competition on the aforementioned quality, low price, and 
service. They are able to charge high prices (thus protecting their 
fantastic profit margins) without fear of strong retribution from 
the customers or loss of revenue. WordPefect, as an example, cannot 
compete with Microsoft, because their product cannot read and write 
to Microsoft document formats without loss of information or 
formatting. They cannot compete on a level playing field, and 
customers cannot switch because their data, their business, is tied 
to Microsoft formats. Microsoft has cried foul when the Department 
of Justice has sought to curtail it's ``innovations'' and 
prevent additional software from being added to the Windows 
Operating System. But, innovation has suffered more because of 
Microsoft's abusive monopoly. Nearly evertime a truly new, or 
innovative idea has emerged in the computer market Microsoft has 
either attempted to buy the technology or subvert it to their own 
ends. In many cases, they do both, they buy the technology and push 
it under the rug, then introduce their own proprietary version that 
they then foist upon the unsuspecting world. In all cases Microsoft 
is not the innovator they are the deep pocketed megacorporation who 
is seeking to extend their monopoly.
    Examples of this abound:
    (1) Stac created a disk compression technology that was 
incredibly useful because hard disk sizes were so small. Microsoft 
created a competing product that came bundled with DOS and Windows 
that was actually based upon the Stac technology. They stole from 
Stac and used it to increase their own Windows market. A trial and 
settlement later insued, but Stac was never a viable company or 
technology again.
    (2) MP3 files are all the rage for music sharing. Regardless of 
the possibly illegal implications of sharing such files, it is a 
viable technology in widespread use in the world, a de-facto 
standard. Microsoft will have none of this and has introduced it's 
own compressed media playing format that you can only get from 
Microsoft. In it's latest incarnation you cannot play it on Windows 
95 because Microsoft has decided that they want to force users of 
that operating system to upgrade to later editions. MP3 files can 
play on nearly any OS in existence, encouraging diversity and giving 
people what they want on the operating system they prefer to use. 
Windows Media Format does not allow for this. Microsoft is also 
pushing their format onto hardware vendors to replace popular MP3 
players, and onto home sterio equipment. Who, other than Microsoft, 
is really be served by this?
    (3) Real practically created the online media streaming content, 
and briefly their future was bright. Then Microsoft decided that 
they also wanted this market. How is a small unknown company to 
compete with the monopoly that owns the platform the access?
    (4) Microsoft decided to get into the game market and is now one 
of the #1 vendors of video games on the PC (they are also 
seeking dominance in the game console market). By owning the 
platform, Windows, they are able to modify the very code of the 
operating system to support their own gaming efforts, no othamer 
vendor can compete with that. Competing game companies, barely 
surviving between game titles, are an easy purchased by the 
exceeding wealthy Microsoft.
    (5) Hardware vendors who might have been encouraged to use 
competiting operating systems such as BeOS, Linux, GeoWorks, OS/2, 
and such were not allowed to by exclusive contract deals with 
Microsoft that they were practically forced to agree to. Without 
these deals they could not have been competitive with those vendors 
who signed them. Dell, without such a deal, would have always had 
hardware prices consistently higher than Compaq with the deal 
because they would not have gotten the same price levels for the 
Windows Operating System or Microsoft Office despite ordering the 
same volume. This controlling of the ``boot sector'' is a 
major reason for the continued dominance of the Windows Operating 
System.
    (6) By virtue of tie-ins to their operating system (the 
platform) Microsoft gains an automatic advantage over competitors. 
Who is to say that Microsoft doesn't do things that inhibits 
competition? They have already had a lawsuit that they had to settle 
with relation to DR DOS. DR DOS was an operating system that 
competed with MS DOS. Microsoft deliberately put code into its 
Windows 3.0 system, that ran on top of DOS products, to make it less 
stable when the DOS version was DR not MS. That is akin to AT&T 
owning all the telephone lines and creating switches that 
automatically put static on the lines with a customer uses Sprint or 
MCI.
    In fact, that is how Microsoft Windows, and possibly Microsoft 
Office should be considered. Ubiquitous products that should have 
fair use laws placed on them. If Windows is to be the dominant 
desktop system, then all competitors should have fair access to it, 
just like competitors have access to telephone lines, highways, 
airlines, and railroads. My preference though is to not see Windows 
in this role, but an operating better suited for such a task, such 
as Linux, or the technology innovative BeOS.
    Microsoft must be punished with both monetary charges and 
structural changes that will force it to not be able to use it's 
ownership of the platform (Windows) to push its other product 
offerings. Monetary charges must be severe, and reflect the 
overcharging they have been able to do for the past 12 years at 
least. Structural changes must be sweeping and create immediate 
entry for competitors to either compete on the Windows platform, or 
against the Windows Operating System. Anything less that changes 
such as these means that US government has not performed the 
necessary actions in protecting free commerce in this nation.
    Thank you.
    David Brickner
    512 School St
    Belmont, MA 02478
    (617)489-7492



MTC-00016537

From: Alexander Baldwin

[[Page 26271]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future. It is my 
belief that a very strong set of strictures must be placed on 
convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to continue 
their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Alexander Baldwin
    home: 617-254-6118
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00016538

From: Craig Pennington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Firstly, I would like to note that I believe 
that all of the problems noted in Dan Kegel's analysis, which can be 
found at , are flaws 
so severe as to make the proposed settlement unacceptable. 
Particularly, I would like to object to the practices which would 
still be allowed toward OEMs. The proposed settlement allows 
Microsoft to penalize OEMs who ship a Personal Computer with no 
operating system or one competing operating system. That is, under 
section III.A of the proposed settlement, Microsoft is prohibited 
from penalizing OEMS who ship a PC with a Microsoft operating system 
and another operating system, or who ship a PC with multiple non-
Microsoft operating systems but does not prohibit Microsoft from 
penalizing OEMs who ship a PC with one competing OS or no OS at all. 
This has the indirect effect of penalizing consumers like me, who 
obtain install media for other OSes from other sources who would 
like to buy a PC without paying for an OS that I will not use.
    It also penalizes consumers like my employer who purchase Intel 
based computers with one non-Microsoft operating system pre-
installed. I do not object to Microsoft rewarding those OEMs who 
sell a lot of Microsoft products, but I do object to Microsoft being 
allowed to penalize OEMs who choose to also sell hardware without a 
Microsoft product installed.
    Until this and the other flaws noted by Dan Kegel are corrected, 
I oppose the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Pennington
    Craig Pennington
    900 North Liberty Street
    Arlington, VA, 22205
    (703) 536-4399
    [email protected]
    Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable 
from magic is insufficiently advanced.



MTC-00016539

From: Brian LaMere
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov',` 
petition(a)kegel.com'
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purpose of th trial is because Microsoft has a stranglehold 
on the market with its monopoly. The ``settlement'' in NO 
way changes that. The settlement is rediculous. In fact, the 
settlement furthers the problem by engraining microsoft more into 
the society. What we need is not more copies of microft operating 
systems out there, we need to stop the unethical practices of 
microsoft. They do not lose anything by giving away copies of their 
software, they gain.
    Brian LaMere
    4860 Clairemont Mesa Blvd #8
    San Diego CA 92117



MTC-00016540

From: Kevin-The Alchemist-Sonney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern-
    I would like to voice my opinion AGAINST the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. The terms, I believe are no more than a slap on the 
wrist, and will, over the next five years, actually increase the 
monopoly power already held by Microsoft.
    This will be bad for everyone-except Microsoft.
    Kevin ``The Alchemist'' Sonney
    ICQ: 4855069
    AIM: ksonney
    320C 0336 3BC4 13EC 4AEC 6AF2 525F CED7 7BB6 12C9
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016541

From: Steven Lucas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement, as proposed, is a very 
bad idea. The settlement amounts to an endorsement of Microsoft's 
continuing anti-competitive behavior and will do nothing to prevent 
future transgressions. Please reconsider the settlement and its 
effects.
    Thank You
    Steven Lucas



MTC-00016542

From: Nick Aubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the current terms 
of the Microsoft settlement. Intellectual property and copyright 
laws applied to the technology industry should foster healthy 
competition and encourage development, which benefits consumers and 
business.
    Microsoft uses intellectual property laws and it's virtual 
monopoly over the desktop operating system market to crush competion 
at every oppertunity. If Microsoft is allowed to have it's way, it 
may very well succeed in it's efforts to deny consumers the right to 
choose from among competing products. This would be bad for U.S. 
intrests, as well as bad for the world at large.
    The IT industry is too important for any single company to be 
allowed to dominate it, the way Microsoft currently dominates the 
desktop. Microsoft must be made to fully disclose it's Windows 
applications programming interface (``API'') set, as well 
opening it's file formats to competing companies and operating 
systems.
    Thanks for your attention.
    Nick Aubert
    Network Technician



MTC-00016543

From: John Cartin
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do NOT agree with the current settlement agreement between the 
DOJ and Microsoft. The reasons below are my primary 
concern. . .
    1. The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    2. The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional `white box' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    3. The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    If these practices are allowed to continue, I believe that the 
anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft will most certainly continue 
to increase the barriers of entry to the market and will eventually 
strengthen its place in the computer market.
    Thank You,
    John B. Cartin



MTC-00016544

From: Chris Corayer
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to oppose the current settlement proposed. In my 
opinion it will change little, if anything.

[[Page 26272]]

    What I would rather see happen is the following:
    1) ALL file formats should be documented and open. This will 
allow FULL compatibility with competing office suites such as Sun's 
Staroffice. Full compatibility will by it's very nature force 
competition into the marketplace. The MS product suite will have to 
prove to its userbase that it is worth spending the money to buy 
said product when there are other products out there that can read/
write their format. This should apply to file formats other than 
just the office products.
    2) Full disclosure/documentation of protocols. This would allow 
such things as the SAMBA group to allow full windows features on 
UNIX/BSD/LINUX machines and allow simple integration of those 
machines into a windows based network.
    3) In the rare case where Microsoft may claim security risks, I 
would respectfully point out that many of the other UNICES, like 
FreeBSD and the different Linuxes, do not seem to have many problems 
with full disclosure. In any event, it should not be sufficient for 
Microsoft to claim security and not furnish information. They should 
be forced to PROVE that something would be completely rendered 
vulnerable if certain protocols were fully documented. This process 
should be overseen by at least half of Microsoft's competitors who 
should be able to determine if this were the case.
    4) Microsoft API's should also be fully documented. This will 
prevent such things as company A being put out of business should 
Microsoft decide to implement a similar program that uses 
``undocumented features'' to make the Microsoft product 
run better or more stable.
    5) No bundling should be allowed in a default install. There 
SHOULD be an option to install additional software during the 
install process, but this should not be the default option. Most 
other OS's allow a simple base install. This will not generally 
include web browsers, multimedia, or instant messaging clients.
    6) No exclusive licensing on the boot loader. Microsoft should 
not be allowed to require that only Windows be installed or that the 
only option shown upon booting be Windows. There should also be 
safeguards in place to prevent retaliation by Microsoft on this 
point.
    The first two points I consider absolutely critical. The 
internet was based on fully documented, and freely available 
protocols. Microsoft's Active Directory is a minor modification of 
LDAP and Kerberos. Both of these are widely used protocols, but they 
will NOT work with the Microsoft versions.
    This prevents competition. The Office Suite is so engrained in 
the corporate sector that there will not be any competition until 
competitors can make a fully compatible product. This will not 
happen until the file formats are fully documented.
    The remaining points are optional. I include the third just in 
case exceptions for security are allowed. I am however willing to 
make allowances if there is some property that Microsoft licensed 
from another party and the license does not allow use in another 
product or similar situations. The fourth point I made is much like 
the browser issue. For a while Netscape would crash often. Certain 
instant messaging clients were very unstable.
    The fifth point is simply to promote users to try non MS 
software. The option to install Internet Explorer would be available 
during the install, but it would no longer be mandatory. I include 
this due to recent events where Microsoft's website was made 
inaccessible to users who used the competing Opera web browser. 
Behavior such as this makes me extremely suspect of any guarantees 
by Microsoft regarding their behavior without outside oversight.
    The final point is one that was already in the proposed 
settlement. I feel that this requirement be kept in any future 
proposal.
    Thank you for your time.
    -Christopher Corayer
    Information Services
    ADE Technologies
    77 Rowe Street
    Newton, MA 02466
    p.617.831.8043
    f.617.243.4443



MTC-00016545

From: Dale Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I see a 3 part solution:
    1. Force Microsoft to open their APIs to anyone who wants them.
    2. Prohibit Microsoft from requiring every PC manufacturer who 
ships a Microsoft-based OS compatible PC to purchase a licence for 
EVERY machine they make. For example, if someone wishes to purchase 
a Dell PC to run Linux, they should not be forced to pay for a copy 
of Windows that they will never use.
    Most importantly:
    3. Limit the number of technologies Microsoft can purchase every 
month/year. Since they do not innovate, but rather swallow up other 
companies and technologies, they destroy competition. This is a 
fundamental part of their business strategy. Instead of developing a 
better competing product, simply buy out the competition. It is 
impossible to eliminate Microsoft's existing monopoly. Preventing it 
from continuing is the key. Financial penalties only drive up costs 
for those who are forced to use the entrenched MS products, and fail 
to serve any purpose. Requiring Microsoft to donate their 
technologies to schools does nothing but strengthen their monopoly. 
The settlement must prevent the continued spread of Microsoft's 
stronghold on the industry. It can be summed up very simply. In the 
case of Apple computer, potential Macintosh computer customers are 
often most concerned about whether or not the Mac runs Microsoft 
Office. In fact, some people don't purchase Macs because they 
believe they can't run Office (Word, Excel, etc). The fact that they 
can run Office, yet this fact is poorly advertised is irrelevant. 
What is relevant is that people are so dependant on Microsoft 
technology that it influences multi-thousand dollar decisions.
    This dependancy on software from a company whose track record on 
security is not exactly excellent is a scary thought indeed. Support 
diversity in the industry.
    Dale Carlson



MTC-00016546

From: Michael Pryor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to make some comments concerning the Microsoft 
settlement.
    I believe that the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft should NOT be accepted in its current form. 
Reasons for this are:
-Microsoft has been proved in court to be a monopolist
-Nothing in the settlement will prevent Microsoft from 
erecting further barriers to entry to compete in the operating 
system market
-Microsoft has sufficiently large ``mind share'' 
amongst customers that no company can effectively compete against 
Microsoft unless they have the same amount of financial resources to 
bring to bear to compete. Microsoft has $30 billion dollars in cash 
to create competing products in any marketplace they choose. They 
are adding to that hoard at the rate of about $1 billion per month. 
A good deal of this cash hoard was accumulated due to their 
monopolistic practices.
    Suggested solutions to help correct the problem:
-A large cash fine should be applied to Microsoft. Some 
sources suggest that Microsoft has accumulated this large a cash 
hoard illegally by not giving out dividends which are taxed by the 
receivers. To my understanding, Microsoft has not paid taxes on this 
level of retained earnings. A large fine would reduce the resources 
that Microsoft has to erect more barriers to entry.
-Require changes to all Microsoft licenses that currently 
prevent their tools from creating executable programs that run on 
other operating systems and prevent their applications from 
executing on other operating systems. All licenses for all Microsoft 
products should allow usage on any operating system. Microsoft uses 
the current license terms to help prevent the growth of competing 
operating systems.
-Require that Microsoft provide timely (within 1 month of 
their release into any publicly available product, including beta 
products) any additions or changes to operating system interfaces. 
This includes ALL interfaces, including security interfaces. The 
language in the current settlement document allows great leeway to 
Microsoft to withhold information for certain APIs. This act of 
withholding does not level the playing field.
-Remember that with Microsoft's large cash hoard, it is only a 
matter of time before they are able to create a monopoly in other 
areas of computer hardware and software. This kind of legal action 
will quite likely be required in the future unless appropriate 
action is taken now to prevent the inherent behavior that brings 
rise to the problem.
    Thank for listening.

[[Page 26273]]

    Michael Pryor
    431 Stone Fence Rd.
    Rochester, NY 14626
    (716) 227-0086



MTC-00016547

From: David Ashley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disheartened by the news that the case against microsoft 
will be settled shortly. It is clear that justice is not being done, 
and that once more microsoft will get away with committing corporate 
murder.
    Microsoft cannot be trusted. The only solution to microsoft's 
abuses is to divide the company into at least two new companies, one 
part owning the OS, and the other owning everything else. Also 
microsoft must be required to compensate the many companies it has 
already either harmed significantly or destroyed completely.
    I urge the DOJ to reconsider ending this case now without any 
real penalties imposed against microsoft. Better to cure the cancer 
that is microsoft now, rather than lull ourselves into a false sense 
of security.
    Sincerly,
    David Ashley
    [email protected]



MTC-00016548

From: Vincent Keunen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Please excuse any language errors, I am not a native English 
speaker. I am the manager of a small company in Belgium, Europe. I 
am strongly against the proposed settlement. I am really and 
honnestly convinced that it will not do much to prevent Microsoft 
from conducting its aggressive and illegal business (let alone 
unethical). There has been several very clear demonstrations in the 
past that Microsoft does not hesitate to have such behaviours. It is 
also very clear to me that, already now, they are seriously 
preparing other kinds of such ``competitors 
eliminations''. What Microsoft has done in the browser market 
to Netscape, it is also doing it with its Windows Media Player to 
Real Player and Apple's quicktime; with its Instant Messenger to 
AOL's Instant Messenger; with its MSN network to other News networks 
on Internet; with Outlook to all other email and agenda systems; 
etc... Not as visible but also important is that all those 
``client'' applications need server software. If Microsoft 
illegally controls all those client software, it will also very 
easily promote its server software (like IIS, Exchange, Media 
server, IM server,...), preventing others from developing such 
server software. This is also true, although to a lesser extent, for 
development tools.
    Our company is betting on Java to develop faster, easier and in 
a more portable way various software systems. Microsoft is trying as 
hard as they can to kill the Java platform (not to be confused with 
Java, the language). So Microsoft is, again, going against our own 
interests, our clients interests and the good health of the software 
industry in illegal ways.
    Please do consider real solutions to this several years long 
problem. Time is in favor of Microsoft. They know it. They do all 
they can, as fast as they can, to quickly capture the various new 
markets I mentioned above and kill competition as they did with the 
browser.
    I can't help but feeling pretty insecure that the tool (the 
internet browser) used to access the vast amount of information, 
data and entertainment of the Internet is today belonging to a 
unique, monopolist, abusive, private, commercial company. This gives 
them an enormous power and ability to control so much of the 
information society. I really fear for my kids: they will live in a 
world controlled by a small number of private, commercial companies 
known to do many illegal things to get more power.
    Please keep my testimony as anonymous as possible, because 
currently, the software world being so dependant on Windows and 
Microsoft that if it were known widely that we are against 
Microsoft, we would probably lose a significant part of our 
business.
    Thank you.
    -
    !try; do()
    -
    Vincent Keunen, Ir, http://vincent.keunen.net Manex, rue Wagner 
93, BE-4100 Boncelles, Belgium http://www.manex.be



MTC-00016549

From: Brandon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my opposition the the proposed 
Microsoft settlement, I feel that it does not do enough to adequatly 
prevent Microsoft from abusing its monopoly power. I feel that an 
effort should be made to COMPLETELY open all protocols and API's 
related to Windows and it's variants, thereby allowing competitors 
to compete on the desktop.
    Thanks for your time,
    Brandon Neill
    Westminster, Colorado



MTC-00016550

From: Pat Wheaton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad 
idea. They have not done nearly enough, and have not abided by the 
spirit and letter of earlier agreements.
    It is time to stop letting MS break the law because of their 
power and influence. Making this happen is your job, in my opinion.
    Thank you,
    Pat Wheaton



MTC-00016551

From: Breland, Martin (US MC)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    It is my heartfelt opinion that the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Anti-Trust case is not a good resolution to this matter.
    Microsoft has violated the law, and needs to be made to 
understand that this is a situation that is taken very seriously, 
both by the government and by the people of the United States.
    Sincerely,
    Martin V. Breland
    Grand Bay, AL



MTC-00016552

From: John T. Shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dr. Sirs,
    The current idea for settlement with Micrsoft over there anti-
trust violations is a very disturbing one.
    Nothing in the settlement either 1) discourages Microsoft from 
increasing there monopoly or 2) forces Microsoft to give up market 
share.
    What you will get from this settlement is more of a monopoly in 
the education sector from Microsoft and little else. The education 
sector is one of the few left that Microsoft doesn't have almost 
complete control over so such a penalty could be devistating to 
competitors.
    What needs to be done is the following:
    1) Microsoft must be forced to open the important standards and 
libraries so it is possible for competitors to be on a level playing 
field. This is not to say they must make there operating system open 
source, but they should open the libraries that allow such products 
as Office or Internet Explorer to be integrated so well with 
Windows.
    2) Microsoft must no longer be allowed to bundle more and more 
programs into Windows forcing 3rd party vendors out.
    3) All OEM contracts with Microsoft that do not allow OEM's to 
install multiple OS's on a machine that contains Windows should be 
modified such that OEM's have this freedom.
    4) Microsoft should be forced to give 1 Billion dollars in 
hardware to schools. The hardware should be delivered in working 
condition running with only competitors software and hardware. No 
Microsoft products should be allowed in this penalty.
    I am sure you will consider these thoughts, and those thoughts 
of all others and see that Justice and the best interests of the 
people are served here. Thank you for your time.
    John T. Shaw
    --
    Computer Engineer, Georgia Institute of Technology
    [email protected]
    Cell: (404) 432-3983



MTC-00016553

From: Bruce Timberlake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my concern, in accordance with the Tunney 
Act, over the proposed Microsoft settlement. I am a user and 
supporter of free and open source operating systems like Linux, 
FreeBSD, and OpenBSD, and of open source applications like 
OpenOffice, KDE, and Gnome.
    I am convinced that not enough effort is being spent really 
ensuring that Microsoft is

[[Page 26274]]

(1) punished for their outrageous and damaging monopolistic 
practices in the computer industry, and (2) prevented by airtight 
legal terms from being able to stray down that path again. It is 
tough to do given the nature of the computer industry: rapidly 
changing, and not necessarily easily understood by the average 
person.
    Nor, possibly, by those who must make the final decisions. I 
hope that once the key elements of an acceptable settlement are 
repeated over and over by those of us in the industry, they will be 
incorporated. I am all for capitalism, and the best company/product/
idea becoming successful in the marketplace on its own merits. But 
when the playing field isn't equal, due to marketing, 
``backroom'' negotiations, unequal licensing terms for 
manufacturers who may not ``toe the line,'' etc, then the 
best company isn't necessarily the one that wins. The best company 
might have never had a chance from the beginning.
    I don't want to pretend that I have all the answers, or even 
many of them. But as a part-time programmer, I think a few key ideas 
have to be part of the settlement, and they must be written in 
straightforward, airtight language, so that Microsoft cannot 
``figure out a way around them'' at any point in the 
future:
    1. All file formats-past and present (as of the date of 
the settlement)-ever used by any Microsoft operating system or 
program, and specifically any member of the Office suite (Word, 
Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook), must be made completely and immediately 
available as ``public knowledge'' in a way that does not 
require any money or identifying information to be given to 
Microsoft by any person, company, or organization that wants the 
information.
    2. All file formats created and used after the date of the 
settlement by any Microsoft or subsidiary company's operating system 
or program, and specifically any member of the Office suite (Word, 
Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook), must be made completely available as 
``public knowledge'' no later than the date the product is 
avaiilable to manufacturers for bundling onto computers, and in a 
way that does not require any money or identifying information to be 
given to Microsoft by any person, company, or organization that 
wants the information.
    3. All APIs used to communicate between any Microsoft products 
(operating systems and/or applications) shall be completely divulged 
to enable the complete and unrestrained interaction of non-Microsoft 
operating systems and/or applications, or replacement of Microsoft 
operating systems. This shall specifically include the Exchange and 
SMB protocols. This information will be made available as 
``public knowledhe'' in a way that does not require any 
money or identifying information to be given to Microsoft by any 
person, company, or organization that wants the information.
    4. No computer manufacturer who offers Microsoft operating 
systems pre-installed on their computers can be penalized in any way 
(through fee increases, contractual obligations, etc) if they wish 
to offer alternative operating systems for customers who desire one 
either in place of, or in addition to, a Microsoft operating system.
    There are many other issues that I don't feel competent to 
suggest a remedy for, but which I would like to state as a concern 
anyway: The oversight committee needs to have the staffing and 
authority to report to the public what Microsoft is doing to 
``make good'' on the terms, and the ability to truly 
punish Microsoft in some fashion if it does not comply with both the 
letter and the spirit of the settlement.
    One idea proposed by Ralph Nader seems especially appropriate: 
``The level of fines that would serve as a deterrent for cash 
rich Microsoft would be difficult to fathom, but one might make 
these fines deter more by directing the money to be paid into trust 
funds that would fund the development of free software, an endeavor 
that Microsoft has indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its 
own monopoly. This would give Microsoft a much greater incentive to 
abide by the agreement.''
    I also heartily agree with and endorse the GNU Foundation's 
suggestions, some of which mirrors my own ideas at the opening of 
this letter:
    1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between software components, all communications 
protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of Microsoft's 
favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces. The rule must 
be: if they cannot publish the interface, they cannot release an 
implementation of it.
    2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the 
field of software. It is crucial to address the issue of patents, 
because it does no good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if 
they have managed to work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the 
functionality it gives access to), such that the rest of us are not 
allowed to implement it.
    3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with 
Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications 
have been published, so that any programmer can implement software 
to support the same hardware.
    To close, I would like to quote the summary by the Computer and 
Communications Industry Association of the DOJ settlement compared 
to that ordered by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals: ``The 
settlement being prepared by Charles James (1) would not prevent the 
central ways Microsoft was found to have illegally maintained its 
Windows monopoly, (2) does nothing to restore competition in the OS 
market, an express Court of Appeals requirement for a Microsoft 
remedy, and (3) has no provisions directed to Windows XP and other 
new endeavors of Microsoft to extend and protect its monopoly to new 
markets in the future, another express Court of Appeals requirement 
for a Microsoft remedy. The proposal is so far outside the 
mainstream of antitrust law, and so completely contradicts the DC 
Circuit's unanimous opinion affirming Microsoft's guilt, that the 
only explanation must be political pressure. Whether or not the 
public learns of the backroom activities will be the responsibility 
of Judge Kollar-Kotelly under the Tunney Act public hearings that 
are required before approval of anti-trust settlements.''
    Thank you for taking the time to read this.
    Bruce Timberlake
    Carlsbad, CA



MTC-00016554

From: elisabeth.kock(a)excite.com
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/23/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    to Whom it may Concern,
    I find the proposed settlement to be a bad idea. Do something 
about it!



MTC-00016555

From: Smith, Wayne (TBC)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whomsoever this may prove to concern,
    The Microsoft settlement as proposed, is a very bad idea.
    Thank you for your time,
    Wayne Smith



MTC-00016556

From: Benjamin Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to make my voice heard:
    I oppose the current form of settlement in the Microsoft anti-
trust trial. While there are glimmers of remedy in there, it does 
virtually nothing to remedy the actual anti-competetive nature of 
Microsoft's past actions. Having won the case, having proven 
Microsoft's illegal conduct, and obtained a judgement that has 
withstood significant legal challenge, I just don't understand the 
logic in a ``slap on the wrist'' and letting Microsoft 
free to resume their activities.
    Since no justice has been served, this agreement amounts to 
nothing more than ``don't do it again'' (again), this is a 
settlement for the sake of settlement.
    This only compounds the problem, as this sets a social and legal 
precedence to allow vicious acts of this nature to continue 
unchecked!
    Please reconsider this settlement!
    -Benjamin Smith
    Chico, California.



MTC-00016557

From: Dominic Giampaolo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to voice my opinion on the Microsoft Settlement. I 
am encouraged by many of the restraints the settlement imposes on 
Microsoft's behaviour. As a software developer however, it is clear 
that a few additions and modification need to be made for the 
settlement to offer a viable development path for third parties.
    The biggest stumbling block to developing competing products is 
that Microsoft does not document their file formats well enough (or 
in a timely fashion) nor do they always document all of their API's 
completely. Without this critical information developers can not 
make products that work well with Microsoft tools nor can they do it 
in a reasonable time frame.

[[Page 26275]]

    Consider the case of a Microsoft Word document (a 
``.doc'' file). If you want to develop software to read or 
write that file format you must reverse-engineer the format or use 
Microsoft's woefully inadequate documentation of the format. This 
insures that your products will be perceived as inferior to 
Microsoft's. Further their published documentation often does not 
match what their applications write out in practice since they 
regularly change the file format and do not document the changes. 
This is a costly area of development for a third party and one that 
is a never-ending battle. Unless the file format information is 
accurate and complete you can never develop a product that the 
market will perceive as anything other than a second class citizen 
to Microsoft's products.
    In the area of Windows API's, the same thing happens. Microsoft 
applications will use undocumented API's, lending them features that 
require external developers considerable more time to implement.
    I feel that the settlement proposal should include provisions to 
ensure that Microsoft releases complete, correct file format and API 
documentation in a timely fashion *before* the commercial release of 
a product. Without this, third party developers will never be able 
to compete on a level playing field with Microsoft.
    I hope that my opinions echo those of others and that you'll 
consider my remarks carefully.
    thank you,
    -dominic giampaolo



MTC-00016558

From: Chris Hadley
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think settling is a really bad idea. It doesn't attempt to fix 
the problem, that Microsoft has an almost complete monopoly on 
computer operating systems. They are still using that monopoly to 
crush software makers and other operating systems. So what if they 
have to pay billions? They'll just make it back in a year or so, and 
in that same year will increase their profits and their stranglehold 
even more. Any remedy that does not increase competition for 
Microsoft is a joke.
    Thanks,
    Chris Hadley
    Microsoft Certified Professional



MTC-00016559

From: Michael Meckler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the currently proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I write software for a living. Much of my time is wasted 
working around flaws in Microsoft's code and operating systems.
    Microsoft is a monopoly, and they abuse their monopoly power to 
gain and retain market share. People who write software know how 
difficult it truly is to work with Microsoft. If Microsoft truly 
cared about innovation, if they designed APIs and tools that truly 
advanced the state of the art, then the vast cloud of animosity 
directed towards Microsoft would dissipate.
    But that's not the case. Microsoft directs the vast majority of 
its resources towards simply increasing revenue, at the cost of the 
quality of its product. But we, the technology workers, are forced 
to deal with it. It costs us time, and money. The entire American 
economy suffers. Microsoft must be forced to allow true competition 
on the desktop.
    American consumers and software developers need true choice, not 
the anemic alternatives offered by Macintosh and Linux. The current 
settlement does nothing to address these concerns; in fact, the 
proposal seems almost ludicrous.
    Thank you,
    Michael Meckler
    7239 Pacific View Dr.
    Los Angeles, CA 90068



MTC-00016560

From: Dale Hawkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. I am writing to express my discontent with the Microsoft 
settlement. I am especially concerned with the inability to read, 
edit, or otherwise interact with various Microsoft document formats 
without the use of Microsoft's proprietary tools. This effectively 
limits the ability of myself and other consumers to choose an 
alternative computing platform. In effect, people are ``locked-
in'' because of the vast amounts of personal data which is only 
available through their continued use of Microsoft products. 
Furthermore, with the ``creative'' licensing proposed with 
Microsoft's latest operating systems, the customer is at an even 
greater risk of his or her data becoming unaccessible without 
renewing various licenses on a regular basis.
    In essence, forcing a disclosure of the various document formats 
seems to be one of the few alternatives to countering the current 
monopoly status of the Microsoft corporation.
    Thank you,
    Dale K. Hawkins
    Littleton, CO



MTC-00016561

From: Andrew Kuster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir or madam,
    Acting under the Tunney Act, I hereby publicly submit my 
comments about the Microsoft settlement. I feel that the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft is a very bad idea.
    Considering the anti-competitive damage that Microsoft has done, 
as has been well-documented in your records, I think the fairest 
settlement involves opening the document formats for Microsoft 
Office programs, making public the source code for all past and 
future versions of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer, and 
offering cash to every licensee of a Microsoft Windows product.
    Thank you for the time you take with this e-mail.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Kuster
    2414 Leslie Circle
    Ann Arbor, MI 48105



MTC-00016562

From: ryan quigley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Ryan Quigley
    Dan Miller Design



MTC-00016563

From: Matthew Miller
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern;
    The proposed settlement in the antitrust case against Microsoft 
does not reprimand Microsoft's past illegal behavior, nor does it 
prevent or account for such behavior in the future. As a consumer of 
software products, this is disappointing and disturbing. As a 
software engineer, this can endanger my ability to work in my chosen 
field. The Proposed Final Judgement also has many openings similiar 
to the first agreement with Microsoft. I cannot support this 
judgement in its current form, and sincerely wish that you would 
reconsider this settlement.
    Thank you,
    Matthew A. Miller
    790 N. Euclid, Apt. 316
    Anaheim, CA 92801



MTC-00016564

From: Joseph Crook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is AWFUL. As a consumer, it guarantees that my 
choices will continue to be stifled by MicroSoft. I need choices.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph Crook
    752 Mount Pleasant Rd.
    Kingston Springs, TN 37082
    Joe Crook
    Oracle8i Certified DBA
    Consultant, Keane, Inc.
    PH: 615-741-7195
    Cell: 615-584-0029
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00016565

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs-
    I am very concerned with the proposed judgement in the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. There seem to be a great number of problems with 
the ``solution'' that has been put forth, and I fear 
unless new action is taken MS will only become more entrenched as a 
solo power in the field.
    One of the specific problems I have with the judgement is the 
fact that, although vendors of competing software packages are 
required to meet ``reasonable technical requirements'' 
seven months before a new release of a Microsoft-OS, MS is not 
required to disclose what those requirements will be. It is 
certainly not inconceivable that

[[Page 26276]]

Microsoft would change those requirements close to a release date, 
considering it's track record to date.
    There are numerous other problems with the judgement, and I 
sincerely urge you to reconsider your current stance on the issue. 
Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Ken Bromberg
    [email protected]



MTC-00016566

From: craig z
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs.
    signed,
    /craig znamierowski
    charlton, ma



MTC-00016567

From: Joel Gilbertson-White
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi there-
    I think the current settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. 
Something seems amiss that they're being let off so lightly.
    The world of computers is going to stagnate instead of flourish, 
all so that Microsoft can make a better profit at the expense of the 
market.
    Thank you,
    Joel Gilbertson-White
    Madison, WI



MTC-00016568

From: Johnson, Robin
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following this action quite closely and I am very 
disturbed by the proposed settlement. It fails to address one of the 
most damaging behaviors of Microsoft-the lack of an Open API 
to a monopoly operating system critical to a large majority of 
private and public daily operations.
    Since the source for the API is not open, Microsoft can make 
hidden changes in the source to ``break'' competitors 
products in the area of Office Applications, Browsers, etc. Worse, 
Microsoft often delivers these changes in the form of 
``necessary'' security patches. This happens on a frequent 
basis and even if it is entirely ``accidental'' it seems 
to be routine for Microsoft and clearly harmful.
    The routine problems with Microsoft products in the area of 
security is also related to their lack of transparency in their API. 
Independent experts cannot find the problems before the crackers do. 
The crackers simply decompile the source code to find the security 
holes. Computer professionals cannot do the same thing because it is 
illegal and unethical to decompile the API source code without 
permission. Making the API source open for review to at least 
independent security engineers is vital for reasons of national 
security. Cyberterrorrists are not deterred by copyright laws. We 
shouldn't cripple the computer community's ability to defend our 
vital computer systems from attack because Microsoft would rather 
hide the problem for PR purposes.
    Thank you.
    Robin Johnson
    Office: 678-352-1307
    Cell: 678-414-3473
    A reasonable explanation will trump the ugly truth every time.



MTC-00016569

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comments
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I write to express my dissatisfaction with the Proposed Final 
Judgment (PFJ) for USA vs. Microsoft.
    While time limitations prevent me from conducting an exhaustive 
review of all the aspects of the provisions of the Final Judgment 
that I find to fail the public interest, allow me to focus on two 
particular issues that are of crucial importance:
    (1) The exclusion of Microsoft's handheld version of Windows 
(i.e. Windows CE and variants, Windows for Automotive, Windows NT 
Embedded, and Windows XP Embedded from the definition of 
``Windows Operating System Product'' delineated in Section 
VI, Item U of the PFJ;
    (2) Provisions of Section III, Item J which give Microsoft broad 
discretion on determining which parties are eligible to receive API, 
Documentation or Communications Protocol information.
    (1) Handheld and embedded operating systems
    I have been working as a user of handheld devices for almost ten 
years and have been an applications developer for three of those 
ten. It has been very clear to me that portable devices will be a 
fundamental domain of computing technology, perhaps even replacing 
the desktop computer as a central unit of processing, in the near 
term. While there are various players in the handheld and mobile 
marketplace, Microsoft is a competitor that has historically used 
its weight to stifle innovation in this marketplace until it was 
ready to embrace it.
    In terms of its APIs, the embedded versions of Microsoft's 
operating systems are modeled closely-sometimes even ported 
directly-on its Win32 API for desktop operating system 
development.
    These versions of the operating system, designed to be stored in 
quickly-accessible RAM or ROM rather than on disk, and with an 
apparently closer connection to the hardware in which they're 
operating, are not significantly technically different from the 
existing desktop Windows technology, save for their portability. 
Microsoft itself, when advocating for the Embedded version of its 
operating system, argues that this close tie provides one of the 
main reasons why developers should adopt its solution: 
``Windows XP Embedded is the componentized version of the 
leading desktop operating system, enabling rapid development of the 
most reliable and full-featured connected devices. Based on the same 
binaries as Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Embedded enables 
embedded developers to individually select only the rich features 
they need for customized, reduced-footprint embedded devices.''
    [http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/xp/evaluation/
overview/default.asp-accessed Jan 23, 2002]
    The versions of the Microsoft OS for handheld and mobile 
devices, (Windows CE and derivatives including Windows CE for 
Handheld PC, Windows CE for Palm-size PC, Windows CE for Desktop PC) 
are tied equally closely in Microsoft's eyes:
    ``The Windows CE operating system is based on the Microsoft 
Win32(R) application programming interface. Therefore, you can 
enhance your applications by using exposed APIs from bundled 
applications.''
    [http://www.microsoft.com/mobile/developer/downloads/
ppcsdk2002.asp-accessed January 23, 2002]
    Microsoft's own behavior in the handheld and mobile marketplace 
reflects similar actions to those presented in the Court's Findings 
of Fact, including concerted action to protect applications barrier 
to entry by performing ongoing modifications to its handheld data 
storage methodologies, by modifying established connectivity 
protocols (including the infrared communications protocols between 
competitors'' handheld devices), and by maintaining its own 
data transfer protocols closed, thus thwarting the efforts of 
middleware vendors and non-Windows handheld device manufacturers to 
provide connectivity solutions that make full use of the 
capabilities of users'' desktop computer hardware to connect 
with mobile devices.
    Because of the rising capabilities and reduction in size of 
microprocessors, along with the quickly falling cost of flashable 
(rewritable) ROM and high-capacity RAM, it is very likely indeed 
that what we call embedded or mobile systems today will come to 
replace wholly desktop-based solutions for everyday users in the 
near and mid-range future. Embedded systems will (and do) reside in 
automobiles, household appliances, communications devices, and just 
about every other type of device that uses electronics to perform 
complex functions.
    Allowing Microsoft to extend its monopoly into the embedded and 
mobile marketplace while remaining unfettered by the consequences of 
its previous anti-competitive behavior in the desktop operating 
systems marketplace is detrimental to the public interest.
    (2) This point is much more brief, but equally important. In 
giving Microsoft the power to determine that a company ``meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business'' 
before receiving API and Documentation, or Communication Protocol 
information, it effectively gives Microsoft the power to exclude 
open source and free software developers from building

[[Page 26277]]

systems that are fully interoperable with existing solutions 
provided by Microsoft, mostly because these developers are not 
engaging in ``viable business''. Indeed, many of these 
companies are not engaged in business at all, but are working 
through the concepts of sharing and widely disseminating usable code 
and applications. Powerful and open public goods such as the 
Internet and Linux grew through this kind of non-business activity. 
This item effectively shuts out the public interest in 
interoperability and standards compliance by giving Microsoft the 
power! to define what is authentic and viable. Microsoft CEO Steve 
Ballmer's rhetoric regarding Linux as a cancer demonstrates their 
predisposition to exclude open source systems from any and all 
consideration for interoperability and access:
    ``The only thing we have a problem with is when the 
government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for 
work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to 
commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any 
open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software 
open source. If the government wants to put something in the public 
domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain.''
    [http://www.linuxmax.net/maxnews.php?ArticleID=26-Accessed 
January 23,2002]
    Aside from Mr. Ballmer's odd reasoning that an operating system 
for which the source is open and available to anyone is not in the 
public domain, his reasoning that open source licenses are not 
commercially viable makes a statement of predisposition that I have 
no doubt would be used as legally acceptable parameters, under the 
PFJ, to thwart public efforts at building an interoperable, free 
operating system.
    I sincerely hope that Microsoft will have to atone for its 
extensive history of anticompetitive behavior.
    However, it is clear to me, and to those of us in the technology 
industry who have seen Microsoft as a company uninterested in 
cooperating, that this PFJ would do little to force that atonement 
and would do much to provide Microsoft a legal platform from which 
to continue its anticompetitive behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Juan Felipe Rinc'n
    Arlington, Virginia



MTC-00016570

From: Neil Bliss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Tunney Act comment
    Folks,
    Microsoft must be made to cease it's monopolistic behavior with 
regard to the use of it's Software development kits, compilers and 
Integrated Development environments. In the License Agreement, a 
purchaser of Microsoft Visual C++ is forced to agree that they will 
*only* use this compiler to build code to run on a ``Microsoft 
Operating Sysytem Product.'' Why? There is absolutely NO 
technical excuse for this sort of behavior.
    Code compiled under this compile can easily run under other 
operating systems. Microsoft is attempting to use thier dominant 
position in the Compilers marketspace to effectively remove all 
other Operating Systems from the market. This is wrong. Please make 
this change.
    Thanks,
    Neil



MTC-00016571

From: Ken Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my strong opposition to the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I urge you to support the alternative settlement proposed by 
those states that refused to sign on to the proposed settlement. The 
proposed settlement will not appreciably curtail the illegal actions 
through which Microsoft has maintained its monopoly over desktop 
computing. The single most important item needed is that all API's 
and file formats, both of Windows and of applications such as Word, 
be available openly to the world of programmers at the same time and 
in the same detail as it is available to Microsoft programmers.
    This is the only way that competition has a chance to thrive. 
The proposed settlement falls far short of this goal, allowing 
Microsoft to pick and choose who will have access to this technical 
information, to restrict which things will be documented, and to 
provide documentation only at the last minute (if then), and 
furthermore has no effective enforcement procedures even for these 
very limited measures. There are many many other failings of the 
settlement as well, as is made clear by a comparison to the 
settlement proposed by the dissenting states.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Miller
    Kenneth D. Miller
    Associate Professor
    Dept. of Physiology, UCSF
    513 Parnassus
    San Francisco, CA 94143-0444
    telephone: (415) 476-8217
    fax: (415) 476-4929
    internet: [email protected]
    www: http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/ken



MTC-00016572

From: Kirk L. Duffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This purpose of this letter is to express my concern over the 
proposed settlement in the U.S. vs. Microsoft lawsuit.
    I don't profess to be an expert in these matters, but the things 
that I've read lead me to believe that the proposed settlement will 
do little to truly curb the anti-competitive practices that 
Microsoft has demonstrated time and again.
    As a proponent of quality software and alternative operating 
systems, I feel that the proposed settlement is *not* a good idea.
    Kirk L. Duffin
    Computer Science Department
    Northern Illinois University
    DeKalb, IL 60115
    phone: (815) 753-2628
    fax: (815) 753-0342
    office: PM 567
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00016573

From: Clark Christensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the current settlement to the Microsoft Anti-
Trust suit.
    The current settlement does not guarantee interoperability or 
published protocols, nor does it prohibit Microsoft from violating 
the Anti-Trust tenent that an existing monopoly cannot be leveraged 
to create another monopoly in an adjacent market. Under the current 
settlement Microsoft is protected from divulging Intellectual 
Property. This will protect them from having to reveal protocols and 
interfaces to services that use their technology. Anyone who wants 
access will have to license the technology, and effectively allowing 
Microsoft to determe the type of competition it will have to face. 
Since Open Source alternatives, which Microsoft fears as it's 
greatest competitor, have no budget for licenses they can 
essentially eliminate this competition through exclusive/expensive 
licenses. Furthermore, any ability by Microsoft to require such 
licenses will preclude any Open Source alternatives since the 
licensee will not be permitted to divulge any of the Intellectual 
Property (i.e. the code)-the very anti-thesis of Open Source.
    The new MSN browser and passport services shipped with Windows 
XP (a seperate browser from Explorer) illustrates exactly how 
Microsoft hopes to create a new vertical monopoly by leveraging 
their current operating system monopoly. With .NET, users will be 
forced to Microsoft's software or proprietary software that licenses 
Microsoft's technologies to access any of their services. Vendors 
may thus be bullied into using Microsoft technologies for fear of 
losing market share, and desktop users who use any of these tied in 
services will have little choice but to continue with Windows on the 
desktop.
    These issues must be addressed in order to keep the computing 
market competitive. The internet thrived because of openness, lets 
keep it thriving.
    Sincerely,
    Clark Christensen
    602 Cottage St. SW
    Vienna, VA 22180
    (703) 242-3970



MTC-00016574

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Excerpts from: http://web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/11/
02/opinion/dgillmor/weblog/index.htm
    The next step is a Tunney Act hearing, where the judge is 
supposed to determine if the settlement is in the public interest.
    The last judge who held a Tunney Act hearing on a Microsoft 
antitrust settlement

[[Page 26278]]

was so incensed by what he saw that he, like the judge in the trial, 
shot off his mouth and got tossed off the case.
    Will the states fold, too? Many will, no doubt.
    Mere state governments don't have the money to fight a 
monopolist that generates more than $1 billion in extra cash every 
month, just a portion of the profits that even in an economic 
downturn keep rolling into the coffers.
    Some states will probably keep fighting. Despite having won a 
case that showed Microsoft to be a sneering, brutal 
lawbreaker-with no intention of reforming-they're now 
total underdogs.
    There needs to be some feedback. To many companies are looking 
at M$ as the business stratagey of the century. We don't want this. 
I can't even fathom 1 billion a year, let alone a month.
    Don't be a sham. If this was your last case what would you want 
people to say. Yea, he bent. That is what everyone is saying now. 
Don't lose your cool.
    You will only be tossed from the case. Let them know that 
Justice is blind. You have your scales and you have the sword. Do 
what you know is right.
    Not right for you and your family, but what is right in the big 
picture. I think you know what the big picture is.... the future. 
Let them know they can line lawyers and politicians
    pockets with money, but not the judge.
    In support: Excerpts. http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    Failure to address Ill Gotten Gains
    Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything 
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an 
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is hardly a first time 
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct, choosing 
instead to repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers 
of the government and members of the judiciary.
    Microsoft has profited richly from the maintenance of its 
monopoly. On September 30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short-
term investments of $36.2 billion, up from $31.6 billion the 
previous quarter-an accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per 
month.
    This is astounding. It isn't a matter of if they can pay, 
becasue we know they can, it is a matter of penalty.
    The penalty should make them stop and think about what they are 
doing. They are getting rich from it. It has already been shown what 
they did was wrong. 8 Judges have said so.
    Don't let Politics get under the Lady Justices'' blind 
fold. None of that should matter.
    It is all in your hands now.
    Brian Alvarado
    mWired
    626 568 6376



MTC-00016575

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The ``settlement'' is a total surrender on your side. 
The main reason: you leave untouched the many provisions in the 
Microsoft-OEM contracts that were from the very beginning the basis 
for building a monopoly and later to abuse of the same.
    Judge Jackson had copies of such contracts in his hands, but 
utterly failed to understand the role they have played. Not even 
their status as ``trade secret'' was questioned; of 
course, the only secret protected by such status, is the arm-
twisting methods that MS uses to force their low-quality products on 
OEMs and consumers.
    Bottom line: due to the contracts, no OEM installs other 
operating systems besides Windows in the same computer, and very few 
offer computers *without* Windows, because the have to pay for the 
OEM-licence anyway.
    This is just another botched, alibi settlement.
    THE CONSUMER STILL HAS NO CHOICE
    My best regards, Aquiles Luna



MTC-00016576

From: Matt Heinzen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft 
is not in the best intersests of consumers or the software industry. 
Reasons why the settlement is bad for consumers
    1. Microsoft has been shown to break compatibility of 3rd party 
products running on MS operating systems (DR-DOS and Lotus 
1-2-3). This discourages consumers from buying third 
party software when MS products are available because the 3rd 
software will not run as effectively as the MS software even if 
whether the MS is of lower or equal quality.
    2. ``Monoculture'' software means that vulnerabilities 
are widely deployed. Internet worms such as ``Code Red'', 
``Sircam'', ``Melissa'', and ``I Love 
You'' were specifically designed to target flaws in MS 
applications many people were unaware were even running on their 
computers (the IIS server program automatically enables on some 
versions of Windows) or in programs that are capable of running 
untrusted code without the users consent or knowledge (Visual Basic 
scripting enabled by default in MS Outlook). The exploits for these 
inherint vulnerabilities were so widespread largely because of the 
MS monopoly.
    3. Forced upgrades. MS has not introduced features that are 
really critical to most consumers in its latest home versions of 
Windows, yet consumers are forced to upgrade Windows to be able to 
get technical support. This also usually means upgrading their 
computer hardware because each version of Windows requires more 
powerful resources than previous versions. Alternative free 
operating systems such as Linux and BSD support modern software but 
also can be run ``stripped down'' on systems five or even 
ten years old, meaning that it is possible to produce systems that 
do not require constant hardware upgrades. This model is just not in 
the best interests of MS, because it would not generate as much 
revenue.
    Reasons why the settlement is bad for the software industry
    1. MS has been found to, and will likely continue to, leverage 
their monopoly against computer manufacturers. Most people buy their 
computer and install very little software on it after the fact. Very 
few people install new operating systems. MS has used these facts to 
work exclusive licensing deals with computer manufacturers that 
virtually guarantees that any non-Macintosh PC purchased from any 
big name vendor will come with a version of MS Windows installed, 
regardless of what the consumer wants. Although installing a 
different operating system is a viable alternative, this would mean 
that the consumer has already payed money for a product they will 
never use. Manufacturers would like to provide alternatives, but MS 
could stop licensing Windows to these manufacturers. Although this 
would clearly be illegal given MS is a monopoly, the PC manufacturer 
would go bankrupt by the time the matter could be resolved legally.
    2. Lack of competition causes stagnation. MS has very little 
reason to improve their products with no viable competitiors 
available for typical consumers. Most of the changes in recent 
additions of Windows have been visual improvements and application 
improvements not specifically requiring a new operating system, such 
as improved multimedia applications. There is little incentive for 
competitors to create new operating system alternative as long as MS 
is allowed to continue their monopolistic business practices, 
meaning that true technological innovation is being stifled.
    For these reasons I believe that stronger actions are needed 
against MS. Alternative operating systems and application software 
must be allowed to compete on an even level with MS products, and PC 
manufacturers must be allowed to sell alternative that customers 
really want.
    Matt Heinzen
    [email protected]
    (612) 332-9594
    1400 S 2nd St Apt B608
    Minneapolis, MN 55454



MTC-00016577

From: Brian Templeton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system- 
even for computers running competing operating systems such as 
Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 
consent decree.)
    Brian Templeton



MTC-00016578

From:

[[Page 26279]]

[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take just a moment to comment on the pending 
Microsoft judgement. Having worked in the computer industry in many 
different capacities over the last 10 years I have come to 
understand how strong Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop really is. 
I must say that the current judgement and penalty being considered 
is far from adequate.
    I have seen several companies with strong and viabale products 
pushed out of their market space by Microsoft's use of their 
monopolistic position. These include more recent examples such as 
Netscape and Apple, to older examples such as Wordperfect and Lotus 
1-2-3. By using undocumented features in their Windows 
operating system in their products, Microsoft was able to produce 
spreadsheet and wordprocessing products, that ran faster and were 
more readily avaliable than their competitor's. By bundling software 
with their operating system, and calling it ``free'' they 
managed to gain significant market share over other web browsers.
    Despite a consent decree in the mid 90s that was aimed at 
changing their predatory behavior in relation to their OEM contracts 
and the desktop Microsoft has consistently shown that they are 
unwilling to change their behavior. I feel that the solution 
currently being considered is far from a viable tool to ensure 
compliance with current anti-trust statutes. Leaving the company 
intact with some ``oversight safegaurds'' is akin to 
leaving Iraq intact and its leader in power, and trusting that they 
follow the agreements they made. We know where the situation in Iraq 
has gone, and judging by the actions of the past, I can determine 
where the future will go with Microsoft. Let me put it another way, 
it is being suggested that we give a habitual offender a slap on the 
wrist and probation. A criminial act is a criminal act regardless of 
who commits it. We should treat it as such.
    Two additional points.
    First, I find it highly interesting that Microsoft is almost 
eager to persue the judgement being considered. That would hardly 
allow it to be defined as punishment. Second, I also find it highly 
interesting that the DOJ's position on the case changed after a 
change in the leadership of the executive branch. Justice is 
supposed to be blind, following the dictates of some greater 
definition of right and wrong, not holding its finger in the wind to 
figure out which it should go.
    Thank you,
    Mark Juliano
    Mark Juliano
    Unix Administrator
    Autotrader.com
    [email protected] voice: 
404-269-8010



MTC-00016579

From: Sean C. Malloy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a US citizen with over 10 years of software engineering 
experience living in Austin, Texas. I have read the Proposed Final 
Settlement in the case of US v. Microsoft.
    I am very much opposed to it, as it:
    1) Allows Microsoft to continue harming consumers by retaining 
the advantages they have illegally gained through anticompetitive 
business practices
    2) Does not go far enough to ensure that Microsoft will compete 
fairly in the future
    3) Is worded in language such that Microsoft will be able to 
continue their monopolistic behavior by technically complying with 
the settlement, but violating its spirit
    4) Lacks adequate enforcement provisions I urge the court to 
reject this proposed final settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Sean C. Malloy
    [email protected]



MTC-00016580

From: Andy Lubbers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The PFJ contains misleading and overly narrow definitions and 
provisions, such as the following:
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product- but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET.
    The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation- 
but prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents?
    This can scare away potential users.



MTC-00016581

From: Stephen Peters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concerns (under the Tunney Act) on 
the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in the Microsoft settlement.
    I feel that the PFJ does not go far enough, either in punishing 
Microsoft for its previous anticompetitive behavior or in preventing 
such behavior in the future. Among the problems:
    * The definition of Microsoft Middleware Products seems to be 
overly limiting, since it doesn't mention (for example) the very 
popular Microsoft Office suite or Microsoft's new .NET platform. It 
seems clear to me that these are platforms that Microsoft is hoping 
to leverage for new development, and could use these loopholes to 
prevent competitors from interoperating with these technologies.
    * Although the APIs for some products will be opened, the issue 
of file formats is unaddressed. This is one of the issues that forms 
part of the barrier to entry for competitors, as touched on by the 
court's Findings of Fact (paragraphs 20 and 39). As long as it's 
difficult to, for example, read a Word document in another word 
processor, Microsoft will maintain a substantial advantage over its 
competitors.
    * Although the licensing agreements for OEMs are improved, no 
mention is made of the licensing agreements for large customers of 
Microsoft. For example, Microsoft often charges 
`enterprise'' customers licensing fees based on the 
number of machines that are capable of running their software, 
rather than on those that actually do.
    In short, I feel the PFJ is currently not in the public 
interest, and needs to be revised before acceptance.
    Thank you,
    Stephen Peters



MTC-00016582

From: Phillip D Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a 25-year old java developer for IBM, in RTP, North 
Carolina.
    I feel the need say that the DoJ's settlement with 
microsoft does nothing-In fact, it provide for years of mis-
inturpataion and renews litiagation with out stoping the criminal 
Micosoft practices. Please find a more strigent set of controls 
against such unlawfull acts.
    In short, I think this proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    /s/
    Phillip Jones



MTC-00016583

From: Kelly Guimont
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the current proposal for resolution of 
this case. I do not think that Microsoft should be allowed to

[[Page 26280]]

leverage their monopoly into the education market, nor do I believe 
that any decision other than splitting the company up will be a wise 
one.
    Sincerely,
    Kelly Guimont



MTC-00016584

From: Matt Brown
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any proposed settlement that doesn't compel Microsoft to 
actually change it's business practice is a waste of time and 
another victory for the overbearing company. A Very Large Fine would 
get their attention, but actual enforcement and action that 
prohibits Microsoft from squeezing out competitors is important. 
Competition based on quality of product is one thing, but based on 
illegal business practices should not be rewarded with a wrist-slap.
    Any settlement involving free software, like the recently 
rejected proposal, should not be considered as it just gives 
Micorosoft an inexpensive foothold into additional markets.
    Thank you.
    Matt Brown
    Public Information Specialist (Webmaster & Video Production)
    PAWS
    P.O. Box 1037, Lynnwood, WA 98046
    (425) 742-4009 x821
    fax (425) 742-5711
    [email protected]



MTC-00016585

From: Gordon Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to urge you to reject the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation.
    I am a computer professional, a customer of Microsoft and their 
competitors, and a concerned citizen. I have carefully examined the 
proposed settlement and believe that it is not punitive and will 
primarily serve to extend the Microsoft monopoly and further damage 
their competitors.
    A more appropriate settlement would involve a large cash-only 
fine and restrictions on Microsoft's entry into markets in which 
they can use their monopoly power to eliminate competition, as they 
have historically done.
    Please, reject this settlement.
    Respectfully,
    Gordon Meyer
    2208 Lenox Place
    Santa Clara CA 95054



MTC-00016586

From: Andrew Chaplin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is not favorable towards the 
public's interest.
    Thank you.
    Andrew Chaplin, Lead Operator/System Admin I
    Information Technology Services
    Canisius College
    2001 Main St.
    Buffalo, NY 14208
    Phone: (716)888-2447 Fax: (716)888-3223



MTC-00016587

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and have been a 
software developer for over 10 years. My main objection to the 
proposed Final Judgement in the United States v. Microsoft is that 
it does nothing to stop Microsoft from continuing it's ``Slash 
and Burn'' method of growing its business. Presently, in my 
opinion Microsoft has three ways to squash, ``Slash and 
Burn'', a competitor:
    1. Buys the competitor's technology or company and uses it as 
its own.
    2. Buys the competitor's technology and then don't support it in 
the future. If it's not supported by Microsoft then nobody uses it.
    3. Duplicates the technology and offers it free.
    A most recent example of this is Microsoft's recent acquisition 
of SGI's technology. SGI created an OpenGL technology that most 
Video card manufactures adhere to. Microsoft has their own DirectX 
technology. The DirectX technology is only supported on Windows 
operating system. OpenGL technology is supported on almost all 
Desktop Operating Systems. Since Microsoft has purchased this 
technology all they have to do is ``slash'' support for 
it. If there is no support for it, video card manufacturers don't 
need to build support for it. If Video card manufacturers don't have 
support for it then non-Microsoft operating systems will have no 
hardware 3D support. Thus making Microsoft the only Operating system 
that PC games can run on. Theoretically, Microsoft can then close 
the API for DirectX and be the only creator of 3D software games.
    In my opinion, the one way to stop this activity is to make ALL 
of the source code for the kernel of its operating systems open to 
the public. If the source to the kernel of the operating systems is 
open, then any company, or person, can create API's to that source. 
Another way to stop this activity is to separate the core operating 
system business from the other software business.
    Sincerly,
    Terence W. Grantges



MTC-00016588

From: Mac Michaels
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer. I know from first hand experience 
that Microsoft makes changes to its operating system just to make it 
incompatible with the previous version. This requires me to make my 
own product more complicated and expensive to the customer. This 
additional cost provides no improvement. Changes must be made since 
all new systems ship with the latest version of Microsoft's 
software.
    Microsoft fails to fully disclose the Application Programming 
Interface (API). This hurts software developers since we do not have 
all the information required to build an efficient interface with 
Microsoft products. Microsoft further obfuscates this interface by 
errors in the documentation and errors in their implementation of 
the API. Microsoft creates undocumented interfaces and file formats 
only in house Microsoft developers know about.
    It might be inappropriate to require new operating systems to 
support all APIs. There should be some limitation on API changes 
that provide no real benefit. Requiring Microsoft to make all the 
source code available to developers is a reasonable solution to this 
problem. Developers can easily figure out what API documentation and 
implementation is in error. Undocumented APIs are clearly visible in 
the source code. This solution will provide a level playing field 
for all software developers. This will not give anyone a license to 
change the Microsoft product and deliver an altered product. It does 
give developers an opportunity to determine exactly what happens 
when they use a Microsoft API so that they can use it correctly.
    Wilson M. Michaels
    12601 Trails End Road
    Leander, TX 78641



MTC-00016589

From: Powers, Jonathan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. You should 
be ashamed.
    Jonathan A. Powers
    Digital Designer, Harris Corp.



MTC-00016590

From: Douglas Kirkland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea.
    Douglas Kirkland
    Des Moines, WA 98198
    User of the internet and Technical support for a internet 
company.



MTC-00016591

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As per the Tunney Act, I am voicing my disdain for the current 
Microsoft settlement.
    It is insufficiently punitive, and it allows them to further 
their existing monopoly while doing nothing to quell it.
    T. Blake Woolbright
    Mission, Kansas



MTC-00016592

From: Russell Valentine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement for Microsoft has serveral 
holes in it that will

[[Page 26281]]

allow Microsoft to act just as they are today. One of the most 
important aspects that I think the settlement is missing is the 
Microsoft file formats still remains undocumented. Now that a large 
majority of the United States population is using Microsoft 
applications for everyday work (which happened because of Microsofts 
illegal monopolistic practices), Microsofts file formats stop people 
from changing to other software because they can not read other 
peoples documents. I think this and many other aspects need to 
relooked at.
    Russell Valentine



MTC-00016593

From: Jim VanBrocklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement changes NOTHING. Perhaps even 
exacerbates the problem by forcing MS into the education market. 
There will never be a ``good'' time to reign in Microsoft, 
but the longer we wait the harder it will be when finally, everyone 
realizes what is at stake here.
    A good start would be to wean the government off of MS products. 
Then, maybe start with education. Proprietary file formats are used 
as a means to force upgrades and lock consumers into a single 
product.
    Please-reconsider the settlement.
    jim vanbrocklin
    [email protected]



MTC-00016594

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea, please 
reconsider.



MTC-00016595

From: David Deen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am submitting this comment, as permitted by the Tunney act, 
regarding the remedies proposed as the outcome of the Microsoft 
Antitrust trial. As a professional in the software development and 
computer graphics fields, I must work with non-Microsoft development 
tools and products every day. The proprietary and ever-changing FILE 
FORMATS used by Microsoft, however, make even the exchange of simple 
text files between Microsoft and non-Microsoft programs incredibly 
cumbersome.
    Any proposed Microsoft remedy which does not include the 
absolute requirement for openly published data file formats falls 
far short of the required public benefit. On the day-to-day office 
work level, it is this intentional file format incompatibility which 
forces purchase of Microsoft products, and further, it is the 
artificial incompatibility BETWEEN VERSIONS OF THE SAME MICROSOFT 
PRODUCT which forces purchase of ever newer Microsoft products, EVEN 
THOUGH THEY FREQUENTLY ADD NO RELEVANT FUNCTIONALITY OVER THE OLDER 
PRODUCTS.
    Publicly available Microsoft file format specifications would 
allow third-party developers to produce file conversion tools which 
completely obviate this unfair Microsoft practice.
    Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this judgment.
    David Deen



MTC-00016596

From: Shawn Yarbrough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am a professional computer programmer who has been negatively 
affected in the past by Microsoft's predatory and illegal business 
practices. I wish to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) 
regarding the U.S. vs. Microsoft case.
    Although the PFJ is filled with problems that will allow 
Microsoft to avoid most of it's intended effects, I wish to point 
out one of the very worst problems: Micrsoft is currently able to 
offer different prices for Windows to different customers. This 
allows Microsoft to use a variety of monopoly tactics to reward OEMs 
and distributors who support the Microsoft monopoly and to retaliate 
against those who don't (i.e. by raising prices only for those who 
don't).
    One possible solution to this problem is simple and elegant: 
require Microsoft to sell Windows at a uniform price to any and all 
interested customers. Microsoft could still offer discounts for 
volume buyers but would have to offer the exact same price to all 
customers desiring to buy any given number of copies of Windows. Of 
course ``hidden discounts'' such as rebates or other 
financial incentives (especially discounts on other Microsoft 
products) would have to be disallowed.
    This is only one example of something that is wrong with the 
PFJ. There are (at least) dozens of other major problems. Because of 
this, I oppose the current PFJ and I sincerely hope that a better 
settlement will be proposed. Microsoft deserves no leniency in this 
case.
    Thanks for your time,
    Shawn Yarbrough
    454 Dresden Dr.
    San Antonio, TX 78213-3651
    [email protected]



MTC-00016597

From: Greg Roy
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on 
the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html)
    Thanks.
    Greg A. Roy
    PentaSafe Security Technologies, Inc.
    200 Cordwainer Dr.
    Norwell, MA 02061
    http://www.PentaSafe.com
    [email protected]
    (781) 982-0200 x316
    (781) 982-8076 (fax)
    ``Experior, ergo sum''



MTC-00016598

From: Duane Pawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Final Judgement is a very bad idea. It will 
not stop the abuses and the justice department is allowing Microsoft 
to use the fruits of the monopoly (i.e. $$$) to buy it's way out of 
the case.



MTC-00016599

From: Brett Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I am a software engineer with approximately 10 years experience 
developing system software and applications for the Windows, Unix 
and Macintosh operating systems. It is my opinion that the proposed 
Microsoft settlement (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm) 
will have absolutely no effect whatever on the anticompetitive and 
monopolistic practices of Microsoft, and does nothing to protect 
consumers from the predatory nature of the Microsoft company. In 
fact, the proposed settlement appears to give Microsoft a free hand 
to extend its near total domination of the desktop operating system 
market to other markets as well (such as server operating systems, 
internet protocols, handheld computers, etc...).
    I urge you to reject this settlement proposal and pursue a 
course that will protect consumers, rather than just protect 
Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Brett Johnson-Software Engineer
    36763 Brian Ave.
    Windsor, CO 80550



MTC-00016600

From: Steve Murtha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    re: United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232
    I do not feel that the Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment, in the current form, is in the public interest.
    Microsoft has consistently used and continues to use strong-arm 
tactics to maintain their monopoly in desktop

[[Page 26282]]

operating systems and applications. The Prohibited Conduct section 
enumerates many detailed restrictions on Microsoft behavior but it 
appears to leave excessive maneuvering room for the Microsoft.
    I fear that the Judgment underestimates the power that Microsoft 
holds with it's monopoly position. The Users of Software and 
Developers of Software must have Freedoms which are enumerated. We 
depend too much upon Software Applications to allow one company to 
control the functionality and deployment of the Operating Systems 
and Software Applications.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Murtha
    www.simtools.com
    Simulation Tools, Inc.
    PO Box 160, West Long Branch, NJ 07764
    (732) 229-6050



MTC-00016601

From: James Riordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern-
    I am writing to comment upon the Microsoft antitrust settlement. 
I write to you both as an American and as a computer security 
expert.
    In the latter capacity, I am currently employed by IBM Research 
but have also worked for Counterpane Systems and for The Secure 
Computing Corporation. The opinions herein are mine, and should not 
be taken as representing IBM as a whole.
    I believe the proposed settlement runs strongly against the 
interests of the American public. It does so both from a short term 
economic standpoint and from longer term standpoint of promoting a 
stable and secure information infrastructure. Microsoft's predatory 
business practices have consistently stifled innovation and superior 
technologies in favor of a business plan that abuses the Windows 
monopoly as to lock consumers and business into interminable upgrade 
cycle.
    In this system, Microsoft has no business interest in creating 
stable, secure, well-debugged and tested software. The bugs force 
users and businesses to upgrade; the upgrades, in addition to 
producing revenue, help maintain and expand the monopoly.
    Having been found guilty, Microsoft's practices have actually 
gotten worse. This is evidenced by the release of Windows XP, 
Passport, and the .NET architecture. Should these technologies 
succeed, Microsoft's strangling grip will be extended to the 
entirety of the information based consumer economy (all of e-
commerce, music, movies, literature, computer games, et cetera).
    Allowing such a monopoly-abusive company effective control over 
such a large domain is extremely dangerous and, quite simply, 
unconscionable.
    The most effective solution to the current problem would 
include:
    1. Disallowing operating system (Windows) sales agreements to 
hardware vendors that either preclude the addition of an alternate 
operating system or force Windows to be installed on all machines.
    2. Force the strong separation between fundamentally different 
layers: operating systems (Windows) , middle-ware (.NET), services 
(Passport, msnbc and hotmail) and applications.
    3. Disallow the forced bundling of components and services from 
different these layers.
    If anything in this message has been unclear, I invite you to 
contact me via either of the included addresses.
    Thank you for your time,
    Dr. James Riordan
    IBM Forschungslaboratorium
    Sumerstrasse 4
    CH-8803 Rschlikon, Switzerland
    email: [email protected]
    Tel +41 (0) 1 724 89 81
    Fax +41 (0) 1 724 89 53



MTC-00016602

From: Robert Mahon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft IS stiffling competition.
    Judge Jackson's finding's of Law are correct.
    The only thing left now is stop Microsoft before it's too late.
    Thank you
    R.Mahon



MTC-00016603

From: Dave Hayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I vote NO on the proposed settlement. Microsoft has not been 
punished for monopolistic business practices, nor has their future 
activity been curtailed to prevent more of the same.
    How many companies no longer exist because of MicroSoft's 
practices? How much innovation has not been brought to fruition?
    Please protect the technology and my pocketbook.
    Dave Hayes
    Oregon



MTC-00016604

From: Edward Hagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    (Please forward these comments to the court as well)
    It is obvious to everyone that Microsoft illegally used its 
monopoly power to crush a competitor (Netscape), that the proposed 
settlement does nothing to punish this and the other crimes that 
Microsoft was found to have committed, that Microsoft will continue 
to use its monopoly power to crush or disadvantage competitors, and 
that the proposed settlement does little to prevent such future 
abuses. The settlement also contains clauses that appear to 
specifically preserve Microsoft's ability to discriminate against 
the open source software community.
    It is also obvious that Microsoft's monopoly power is 
extraordinarily intimidating to other companies (for example, 
Microsoft could destroy Apple by simply refusing to release their 
Office software for the Mac), and that this intimidation inhibits 
the competition that has driven the development of the software 
industry since its inception.
    The lack of competition in the software industry will soon have 
a deleterious impact on consumers, if it hasn't already (why must 
EVERY business and institution purchase MS Word for $$$? Because 
there isn't any competitive product due to Microsoft's illegal, 
monopolistic behavior).
    The proposed settlement should be rejected by the court.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Edward Hagen (US citizen)
    Institute for Theoretical Biology
    Berlin, Germany



MTC-00016605

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't let Microsoft buy their way out of this. You must 
think of the long term effects of what we are doing now. Microsoft 
is not a monopoly because they have the best product, they are a 
monopoly because legislators don't yet understand the field of 
computer science.
    Thank You
    Bob Davis



MTC-00016606

From: Steven K. Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a 30 year old Electrical Engineer, I have been a part of the 
``computer revoloution'' all of my life. I would like to 
comment on the current state of the Microsoft trial and my 
experiences during my career.
    Microsoft has been a spectacular business and an amazing example 
of the american dream, but has stifled innovation and creativity in 
the computer industry for as long as I remember. Every day I think 
that Microsoft has pushed the industry to its limits, and every day 
I am surprised and dissappointed at what Microsoft gets away with.
    I have seen Mirosoft develop from a computer OS monopoly, into a 
power that is greater than most governments (maybe our own). I do 
not know of everything that Microsoft has influenced, but I do know 
that they are spreading their sphere of influence dramatically to 
include TV stations, news media, Radio stations, control of computer 
applications (every successful game/application seems to shortly get 
a Microsoft clone or be incorporated into Windows), control of the 
Internet, console game systems, set top boxes, computer periphials, 
PDA, schools, ... (and the list continues).
    I was elated when Microsoft was deemed a monopoly. I have worked 
for companies and been told horror stories about how Microsoft has 
used thier product to make other companies ``bend to thier 
will.'' This influence has sometimes been indirect (but 
intentional) and sometimes shockingly direct. I also know about the 
frustration of

[[Page 26283]]

being passionate about the computer industry and revolution but 
having no choice as a consumer except to choose an inferior product 
because of a powerhouse of a monopoly.
    I was very disappointed with the proposed final judgement 
against Microsoft. I can see no hope that the innovation and 
creativity will be allowed to flourish if the proposed judgement is 
accepted.
    Please reconsider the final judgement to strengthen some of the 
known issues so that Microsoft can become a beneficial competitor in 
a healthy market instead of the sole occupant in that market. I 
consider such matters when I vote (and I vote regularly). I will 
consider a light sentence for Microsoft a sign of a weakening 
government and a need to stregnthen the oversight of corporations 
for the good of the American public.
    Concerned,
    Steven K. Watkins



MTC-00016607

From: Pete Border
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I feel that the enforcement provisions of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement are not adequate. A committee of three people is not 
enough to prevent a corporation of thousands, especially a 
corporation with a culture like Microsofts, fromdoing whatever they 
please. I would suggest a much larger oversight committee.
    Thank you;
    Dr. Peter Border
    University of Minnesota
    Physics Department



MTC-00016608

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I must protest the proposed settlement.
    It is a bad idea.
    Please address issues 
    Respectfully,
    Bill Bishop
    Bill Bishop, V.P. Information Technology/Chief Developer
    H.I.S. Financial Services Corporation
    Premier Electronic Payment Solutions
    Tel:719.633.7005/Fax:719.633.7006



MTC-00016609

From: Marshall Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Marshall Lewis and I am an avid computer tech and 
end-user. I think the Settlement is a very bad idea. Microsoft has 
their way with the market, the product, (in many cases) the 
competitors product, and very much so the end-users whole grasp on 
the way computing should be. How about if Ford bought out every 
other car manufacturer, made it illegal to drive one without paying 
out a fortune per year in extras. Then when Toyota moves in to try 
and relieve some of the end-users who already know what a crock the 
Ford operation is and how another manufacturer may very well be a 
cheaper and most likely more desireable product. But when Toyota 
does this they are shut down by the governments lack of authority 
towards a monopoly. They keep showing how they have exposed 
Microsoft as a monopoly but what has been changed that has actually 
made an impact on their market share.
    Anyway back to work and I hope my opinion counts.
    Marshall Lewis



MTC-00016610

From: David Brower
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ,
    I am adamantly opposed to the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I believe that the remedy found by the trial judge was, 
in fact, appropriate. The conduct remedies will not punish 
Microsoft, nor will they adequately stop the pattern of illegal 
predatory behaviour proven at trial. The previous history of 
antitrust litigation with Microsoft shows that without a structural 
change, Microsoft will find ways to evade conduct restrictions. The 
limits and wording in the settlement are not narrow enough to begin 
to control this corporation.
    thank you
    David Brower
    290 Livorna Heights Rd
    Alamo CA 94507



MTC-00016611

From: Austin Ziegler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does nothing to prevent the further 
illegal expansion of Microsoft's monopoly, and in fact 
encourages actions against various open source projects.
    -austin, a US citizen in Canada
    - Austin Ziegler, [email protected] on 
2002.01.23 at 11.24.27



MTC-00016612

From: Jef Barnhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be held responcible for there actions. They 
have for to long been able to do any thing that they want. They have 
already thumbed there nose at you. Will you stand for that? They are 
making a mockery of the justice sytem.
    I for one do not wish to live in a Microsoft world.
    Jef Barnhart



MTC-00016613

From: Sam Steingold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement because I believe it 
will have no effect on the Microsoft monopoly.
    Much tougher measures are necessary.
    Sam Steingold, Boston, MA
    Senior Analyst, Xchange Inc.



MTC-00016614

From: Todd Kusterer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Settlement is Bad.
    * The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    * The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    * The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    * The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    * The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    * Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once 
banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
    * The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. The last two taken together leads me to 
believe that there will be no change to Microsofts illegal use of 
its monopoly.
    Todd Kusterer
    868 New Mark Esplanade
    Rockville, MD 20850



MTC-00016615

From: Robert Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to oppose the currently proposed settlement of 
United States v. Microsoft. As a 10 year veteran of application 
development for the Intel platform, I have personal experience with 
the anticompetitive practices brought to light in the case, both 
blatant and subtle. After a careful reading of the proposed 
settlement, it is my conclusion that it does not meet the goal of 
preventing further anticompetitive practices by Microsoft.

[[Page 26284]]

    I am in substantive agreement with the points raised by Dan 
Kegel (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html) and therefore will 
not repeat them here.
    On a personal note, my company, despite not competing with any 
current or proposed Microsoft product, still faces integration and 
interoperability issues -constantly- due to the current 
state of affairs, namely the exclusive binding of MS applications to 
and with the operating system. A simple example of this is that 
anyone whose office uses Microsoft Proxy to control access to the 
Internet cannot use our product, as the authentication method 
Microsoft has chosen is undocumented, and is changed with each new 
version to prevent Netscape and others such as ourselves from 
reverse-engineering it. Which in any sane world would cause MS Proxy 
to fail as a product. That it does not is due to it being bundled 
with the operating system, and working successfully with all 
Microsoft net-based applications. This situation is a clear case of 
anti-competitive behavior which will not be resolved by the current 
settlement proposal (as it excludes ``security'' API 
disclosures, and does nothing to prevent giving away integrated 
applications).
    In short, while the proposed settlement is a step in the right 
direction, it will not prevent future monopolistic behavior, merely 
make it less visible and somewhat less egregious.
    Regards,
    Robert Morris
    VP of Engineering
    Eyetide Media, Inc.
    Carrboro, NC
    [email protected]



MTC-00016616

From: Glenn Chundrlek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am currently employed as a Systems Administrator. I have been 
working with computer systems for almost fifteen years. I would like 
to comment on the proposed settlement
    The proposed settlement would have almost no effect upon the 
business practices of Microsoft. If adopted in its current form them 
the result will be negligible change in Microsoft's behavior, and 
yet another protracted court case in the not too distant future.
    Any effective settlement must concentrate on opening up the 
markets that Microsoft has effectively closed by its use of 
proprietary interfaces, file formats and protocols.
    I hereby respectfully submit these comments for your 
consideration.
    Glenn Chundrlek
    6616 N. Toronado Court
    Peoria, IL 61614



MTC-00016617

From: Richard Bretschneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'll try to be brief.
    I've used every product listed in the DOJ case against 
Microsoft. I feel fairly expert in the field, and was an active 
audience in the browser wars. I'm convinced that although 
aggressive, Microsoft1s dominance was due to providing superior 
products, on better schedules, that met more customers needs.
    It seems tragic that political forces, driven by industries in 
their constituency, would manipulate the system to fight a 
competitor when they failed to do so by producing better products.
    I believe that the case so far has harmed Microsoft and the 
industry in ways we won't know for years to come. I point towards 
Europe's growing eagerness to attack American companies as evidence 
that our government is not working in our best interests here. They 
sense that our government will not only refrain from protecting it1s 
business assets, but will in fact paradoxically and masochistically 
set its own citizenry up for the fall.
    I don't know what the settlement should be. The one proposed 
sounded fine to me. Amending it such that schools would have equal 
access to Apple software would be interesting, but from my 
experience with helping out at local schools most of them consider 
Apple products unmerited luxury items. Please consider that 
Microsoft has already been damaged from the proceedings so far. 
Recognize that superior products win out over inferior products and 
inferior products should not be protected from that. Be wise.
    Richard Bretschneider



MTC-00016618

From: Skip Egdorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have many objections to the proposed Microsoft/DOJ antitrust 
settlement. Foremost among these is the issue of allowing open-
source development efforts access to Microsoft Application 
Programming Interfaces (APIs). The proposal only allows access to 
``business'' parties where Microsoft gets to determine the 
``business'' status. Microsoft has already stated that it 
considers open source systems such as the Linux operating system to 
not be valid ``business'' entities.
    Open source development efforts MUST be acknowledged in the 
settlement as a valid recipient of Microsoft information.
    If Microsoft is allowed to remain intact as a monopoly, all of 
its programming interfaces, file formats, and network protocols MUST 
be considered to be freely available published standards. I am not a 
lawyer, but I believe that the guiding principle would be the notion 
of a critical facility controlled by a monopoly as described in the 
early 20'th century supreme court decision where a single railroad 
controlled all bridge traffic over the Mississippi river and that 
the monopoly must make such a critical resource available to all on 
an equal basis.
    The critical facility in this case is the published interface 
specifications to Microsoft's APIs, file formats, and network 
protocols.
    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
    H. W. Egdorf
    Technical Staff Member
    Los Alamos National Laboratory
    Los Alamos, NM



MTC-00016619

From: Jon Shiring
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    This email is to note my objection to the government-proposed 
settlement. I feel it does not adequately restore competition to the 
PC world. In fact, I think it legitimizes some very anticompetitive 
practices, such as their constantly-changing closed office formats 
that prevent any non-Microsoft office packages from reading Word, 
Excel, and Powerpoint files.
    I feel that the settlement does nothing to actually punish 
Microsoft for their past abuses. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
violating a law in specific instances and the punishment is being 
told ``never do that again''. Allowing a criminal to 
benefit from violations of the law is an insult to any notion of 
``justice'' and a slap in the face to the American public.
    I feel this settlement is woefully inadequate. Any fair 
settlement will punish them for past abuses and help level the 
playing field for competition to begin. I do not feel this 
settlement accomplishes either of these goals.
    Sincerely,
    Jon Shiring
    44016 Ferncliff Ter
    Ashburn, VA 20147



MTC-00016620

From: Matthew Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hash: SHA1
    I would like to complain about the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. Although the settlement has several good 
points, I feel that it does not go far enough. Microsoft have been 
proven to use unfair marketing tactics, and of leveraging their 
monopoly, and I don't believe this solution will prevent this 
happening again, this time into the digital media and streaming 
arena.
    I am very anxious that problems such as the incompatibility with 
their Office file formats which have for a long time kept other 
software out of that market, due to the necessity of 
interoperability with other companies. It has been suggested by many 
people knowledgeable in the field that all that is necessary for 
competing programs to have a fair chance, would be the requirement 
that Microsoft release the details of their file formats, enough to 
make it easy to produce a program that can read the files with equal 
reliability to their own products. I strongly support this view, and 
would urge that you consider it before making a decision
    Thank you
    Matthew Johnson. 
    Why the EU-CD is bad-don't let this become law!
    http://eurorights.org/eudmca/WhyTheEUCDIsBad.html

[[Page 26285]]

    ``They that would give up essential liberty for temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' -Benjamin 
Franklin
    ``Those who desire to give up Freedom, in order to gain 
Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.'' -
-Thomas Jefferson
    My PGP public key: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mjj29/content/
aboutme/cam.pgp PGP Key ID: 0x5BE86FB9



MTC-00016621

From: Jeremy Van Veelen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses.
    This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If 
a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit 
from those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Van Veelen
    Americian Citizen Living in Canada
    Jeremy Van Veelen, MCP+I, MCSE
    James Evans and Associates
    Systems Administrator, Oracle DBA Tel: (250) 380-3811
    [email protected]
    Fax: (250) 380-0091
    Tel: (250) 389-2766
    http://www.jea.ca



MTC-00016622

From: Gary Schulte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are a number of problems others have discovered and 
brought to my attention about the Proposed Final Judgement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust suit.
    I expect you, as officials representing the best interest of the 
citizens of the United States, to reconsider said judgement in light 
of these points:
    a.. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions 
and Provisions
    a.. The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    b.. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    c.. The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    d.. The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    e.. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    f.. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    g.. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    h.. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    i.. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    b.. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    a.. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    b.. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    c.. Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system- 
even for computers running competing operating systems such as 
Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 
consent decree.)
    Thank you,
    Gary Schulte



MTC-00016623

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a very bad idea for it is only 
helping Microsoft monopolize the operating system market.
    A better settlement would be to agree to not split Microsoft, in 
exchange for the abolition of all agreements Microsoft has made with 
any PC or electronics manufacturer.



MTC-00016624

From: Brian McFadden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgment in the United States v. Microsoft 
treats Microsoft with too much leniency.
    Please reconsider it.



MTC-00016625

From: shawnm@wsp008010wss. inprise.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has consistently used monopolistic practices to 
subvert other operating systems from thriving in the market, and has 
at every turn tried to subvert open standards in favor of 
proprietary protocols. This is destroying innovation in the market.
    The settlement is a BAD idea.



MTC-00016626

From: Jim Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgment for this case is completely 
inadequate. It allows Microsoft to go unpunished for it's proven 
crimes.
    Microsoft must be punished more than this, which is barely even 
a slap on the wrist, if we expect to see any real change from their 
past and current illegal practices.
    Jim
    -
    Jim Miller
    [email protected]



MTC-00016627

From: Jim Cassidy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a

[[Page 26286]]

``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    James P. Cassidy
    Jim Cassidy
    Celebrate national pi day,
    [email protected]
    Mar 14, at 1:59.26 am.



MTC-00016628

From: Will McKenna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Most of my concerns about this settlement are aptly described in 
this article:
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Thank you,
    William J. McKenna
    6810-A Thorncliffe Drive
    Austin, TX 78731



MTC-00016629

From: gene livingston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: settlement
    23 January 2002
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state.
    Please consider this a vote against the current settlement, as 
well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to 
Microsoft's competitors.
    Gene Livingston
    1222 Commerce St #1611
    Dallas, TX 75202



MTC-00016630

From: Jim Sanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a full time internet software developer using Windows based 
tools (IIS, Interdev, VB, VBScript, ASp and others).
    For the most part these tools are adequate to accomplish the 
tasks I need to get done.
    However, I AM OPPOSED to the current proposed Microsoft 
settlement. One of the main reasons I use the Microsoft tools is 
that there no others available that are easy to use or integrate 
with the existing Microsoft OS and existing Microsoft products.
    I am also appalled at the business behavior of the Microsoft 
Corporation. I think the playing field needs to be leveled and 
Microsoft must be made to make amends for the laws they have broken. 
The proposed settlement does not do that but in many ways actually 
rewards them for bad behavior.
    James Sanford
    2004 Hudson Ave
    Norwood, OH 45212
    [email protected]



MTC-00016631

From: dan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I am adding a comment under the provision of the Tunney 
Act. I feel very strongly that the settlement is tipped far in the 
favor of a large, horrid company that cares not one bit about 
fairness, decency, or even quality products. Microsoft should be 
punished, split, and exposed as the ruthless, rotten money grubbing 
weasels that they are.
    Thanks.
    Dan Norton



MTC-00016632

From: Kirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings;
    I've been a long time Microsoft developer as well as Java 
developer. I just don't understand how the settlement in the 
Microsoft case could have come about in the way that it did to 
become such an ineffective judgement. It is obvious that Microsoft 
wields monopoly power over so many areas, and though I do personally 
benefit from some of their practises, I really think as a whole the 
population is not. I wholeheartedly do NOT agree with the current 
settlement in the case against Microsoft. It is too broad, provides 
no real penalties for their past and present actions and in the long 
run will be quite ineffective. So please, i ask you to get a 
different settlement, one that makes microsoft answer for this 
practises that are harmful to it's own industry and in the long run 
to the population at large. I don't think we want our tax dollars to 
have been spent for so many years proving Microsoft's predetory 
practises, just to have Microsoft continue on with these same 
practises that they were found of guilty of. Otherwise we have 
wasted the DOJs time and the taxpayer's (people like me) money.
    Thanks
    Matthew Kirkconnell
    Ashburn, Va.



MTC-00016633

From: Dyas, Greg
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    The purpose of this letter is to express my opinion during the 
comment period mandated under the Tunney Act, which requires the 
court to consider public opinion before ruling on any settlement.
    The settlement proposed is entirely unacceptable and represents 
a giveaway by the government when it stood in an advantageous 
position in the case, but I'd like to focus specifically on the fact 
that Microsoft would be permitted to keep its Windows and Windows 
API source code private. To allow Microsoft to keep hidden the code 
behind the instrument it's used to bludgeon Netscape Navigator is 
akin to letting a murderer get off with a warning, then choosing to 
give him his gun back because, after all, it is his gun. The code 
used at the operating system level of a computer determines how any 
other program is permitted to interact with it. Microsoft has been 
proven before, not only with Netscape but previously with Caldera's 
DR-DOS, to have no ethical problems using this OS-level control to 
``break'' other programs. To prevent this from occurring 
again, Microsoft must somehow be forced to open its code, or failing 
that, to separate its Windows business from its other software & 
hardware concerns.
    Opening up the code would also allow increased competition with 
the Windows platform and reduce Microsoft's abused monopoly 
position. Such projects as the volunteer-driven WINE software 
project, that seeks to allow Windows programs to run on machines 
running the Linux operating system, would be able to thrive and 
would provide a non-Windows arena for Windows programs to run in.
    Lastly, there's the simple fact of security. Many sensitive 
projects, run by individuals, companies, and the government itself, 
are driven by Windows operating systems. Simply by seeing the code, 
computer programmers for businesses and the government would be able 
to close for themselves the numerous holes constantly discovered in 
the Windows OS. Let's diminish their ability to use the weapon 
they've used again & again to inhibit competition. Let's 
introduce a true level playing field to the Operating System market. 
Let's look at the code. Any settlement that doesn't allow the people 
to see what's been used against them is incomplete.
    Thank you for your attention to this comment.
    Yours,
    -Gregory Dyas
    1429A Poli St.
    Ventura, CA 93001
    (805) 641-1109



MTC-00016634

From: Shemano David A Contr AFRL/SNJM
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    I am writing to you to exercise my right as an American citizen 
to comment on the proposed final judgment in the United States vs. 
Microsoft during this period of public comment, and I would like to 
thank you personally for the opportunity to do so. My concern with 
the proposed final judgment is the way it fails to present a remedy 
to the strong-arm tactics Microsoft has used in the past against 
OEM's who would sell computers that include operating systems other 
than Microsoft's. While the proposed final judgment does make an 
attempt at a

[[Page 26287]]

remedy ( note: I am not a lawyer, so I may be using the term 
``remedy'' in a vernacular sense that is its a legal 
sense) it seems to me that some blaring loopholes remain.
    Section III.A.2. Seems to allow Microsoft to retaliate against 
an OEM who sells a computer with only a non-Microsoft operating 
system.
    Section III.B.3. Seems to allow Microsoft to provide a discount 
to an OEM who ``plays along'' with Microsoft's wishes, 
which amounts to punishing those who do not. My other concern is 
that the proposed final judgment fails to disallow Microsoft's 
licensing agreements that prohibit interoperability with non 
Microsoft products. Currently the Microsoft Visual C++ end user 
license agreement prevents me from using their supposedly ANSI 
standards compliant development system and compiling my program for 
a non Microsoft Operating System.(!) Microsoft also currently 
prohibits users from using non Microsoft tools to develop for their 
.NET platform. Many web sites use the PERL and Python and Java (and 
others) languages to script the user's experience, but Microsoft 
wants to put an end to this practice as soon as they start to deploy 
their .NET web servers. I believe the Proposed Final Judgment fails 
to address this clearly anti-competitive practice. This is something 
like GM requiring that you buy their tools to work on their cars and 
if you use some other vendor's tools your car will be confiscated.
    Finally, I believe Microsoft should be compelled to publish the 
file formats used by Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office is in 
general a great suite of programs that can compete successfully with 
any other offerings and those who use it do not need to be shackled 
to it by its proprietary formats. (What I really believe is that the 
United States Government should refuse to buy any office 
applications that do not have an open and published file format, but 
that is beyond the scope of the proposed final judgment.)
    In general, the proposed final judgment is pretty good, and I 
hope the comments gathered during this public period will be used to 
craft a final judgment that levels the playing field for everyone 
and genuinely prevents Microsoft from unfairly leveraging their 
monopoly any further.
    thank you again for this opportunity to participate in this 
public comment period.
    Sincerely,
    David Shemano
    Scientist
    Optimetrics Inc.
    under contract to
    Air Force Research Laboratories
    Sensors Directorate
    afrl/snjt
    (937) 255-9609 x225
    [email protected]



MTC-00016635

From: dr buford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe this settlement is a bad idea. Think about the 
already-frightening ramifications: I am writing this on a computer 
running MS Windows, emailing you using Internet Explorer, using MSN 
Hotmail as my conduit. In fact, I'm not even sure that this will 
arrive, considering how Microsoft has bullied things in the past. I 
am a research chemist, and I shudder to think that a corporate 
behemoth could bring to a halt much of the research in the world if 
they deemed it would be better for their business.
    Sincerely:
    Dr. Buford Lemon



MTC-00016636

From: Jason Samsa
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea, it does not do 
enough. More must be done to keep Microsoft from using the 
obfuscation of software to introduce incompatabilities into 
competing products. They have a position in the software market 
which allows them to crush any competition that they wish. 
Microsoft's practices discourage innovation and often take the fun 
out of being a computer professional.
    Jason Samsa
    Appleton, WI
    Database Administrator
    Airadigm Communications



MTC-00016637

From: mace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft steals business opportunities from (ANY sized) 
potential competitor by brute force. Flooding the market with a 
usually inferior product for free.
    Thus making most people if they know better of not just use the 
free replacement product that is right at hand.
    Examples are: Windows ME has built in Picture viewers and 
software for digital camera functionality. (a nice addition to the 
OS but a stolen opportunity from a software company) Microsoft Media 
player, a stolen opportunity from real player or many other Software 
Companies. Netmeeting-no place in a real OS IE a well 
documented case of MS stealing business from another company with 
monopoly power.
    These are just a small collection of examples the full list is 
well documented from previous cases against MS. The real tragedy is 
that MS spends all of the resources to make these (non-inovative and 
usually inferior) products that are made possible by and strengthen 
their monopoly instead of making a sound secure OS. If this was a 
tobacco company they would be putting ammonia in the kernel.
    Microsoft is hurting the world economy more than you can 
imagine, holding us all back, please stop them.
    Chris Marckel



MTC-00016638

From: Kevin L
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a very bad idea. Please don't let big business 
(MIcrosoft) buy our government. It is bad enough that they have put 
many competing businesses out of business. The scary thing about 
Microsoft is that if we don't have the courage to level the playing 
field right now, it will be too expensive to level the playing field 
later.
    Kevin Leavell



MTC-00016639

From: Charles Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My perspective from IT services in Education: The Microsoft 
settlement is a BAD idea.
    Charles Lewis
    Dir of Adminstrative Computer Services
    Southwestern Adventist University
    817-556-4720
    [email protected]



MTC-00016640

From: Tom Pitts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement as it does nothing to 
resolve the current anti-competitive situation, but only presents a 
weak attempt at preventing a similar situation in the future. There 
is no punishment for the commission of illegal acts, which seems to 
be rewarding Microsoft for those unlawful acts.
    Tom Pitts
    2603 St. Alban's Circle
    Apt 106
    Naperville, IL 60564



MTC-00016641

From: Friedrich, Robin K
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement represents no solution to the long standing 
problem of anti-competitive policies and actions taken by Microsoft 
over the years. Microsoft have not added much at all to the general 
technology base of the industry. They have only accomplished the 
reduction in choices I and my business have. The settlement is a 
rotten idea as it does little to keep Microsoft from continuing to 
benefit from their monopoly.
    Robin Friedrich



MTC-00016642

From: Chris Hendrickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to discuss my displeasure in the current proposed 
final settlement is a case of ``too little too late''.
    It it my opinion that the current proposed settlement does 
little to truly address the two major problems with Microsoft's 
current monopoly, or rather how they are capable to maintain that 
monopoly, despite the public perception of low quality.
    Those two major issues are the Windows API (Application 
Programming Interfaces), and the Microsoft Office Document formats. 
Several years ago, A company by the name of IBM created the 
``IBM PC'', this, just like all other computers of the era 
was a proprietary architecture unique to IBM. It is

[[Page 26288]]

because of Compaq's reverse engineering of the IBM BIOS and the 
subsequent opening of the architecture that computers are the way 
they are today. I can get a Motherboard from one of many companies 
(Gigabyte, Asus, Epox, etc.), CPU from one of another (Intel or 
AMID), Disk Drives from yet another (Seagate, Maxtor, Western 
Digital, etc.) Memory from others, Video Sound and other expansion 
cards from a plethora of other providers, put it all together and 
get a working machine. In fact, from the hardware standpoint, the 
only thing that is interdependent is the CPU (since AMD and Intel 
use different Processor interfaces). It does not matter whether I 
use a Gigabyte or Asus Motherboard, as long as the board supports 
the processor, and supports the standard interfaces such as AGP 
(Video), DIMM (RAM), IDE (Hard Disk and CD-ROM Drives), PCI 
(Misc. expansion cards). These are open standards that are fully 
documented and that any company can create a product that can fully 
interface with them. The specifications for there interfaces are 
often not controlled by one company, but often, by groups of 
companies, and the specifications are open and available for access 
and comment. It is this openness and standards that make the PC 
hardware what it is today.
    Software is a different story. The ``standard'' is the 
Microsoft Windows Operating System, the Application interfaces are 
not open for all to see, many are closed and only available 
internally in Microsoft. The majority of users use Windows because 
they have no choice, because Windows is the only system that runs 
the applications they want, yet since Windows is the most commonly 
used Operating System, most companies will develop exclusively for 
it. This is the ``Application barrier to entry'' that was 
mentioned in Judge Jackson's finding of fact. The problem is the 
same for the Microsoft Office suite, businesses will use distribute 
documents in the MS Office format because it's what almost everyone 
uses, and almost everyone uses that format because almost everyone 
uses MS Office.
    The Resolution to the problem mentioned above is simple. Opening 
the IBM PC architecture went a log way in encouraging competition in 
hardware (not only in manufacturers of individual components but 
also on the level of System integration such as Gateway, Dell, 
Compaq, etc.). The resulting competition in turn also reduced costs 
and prices (costs because the providers of the fabrication and raw 
materials were better able to compete, and price because of the 
competition between the manufacturers). Likewise, the opening of the 
Microsoft Windows API's (all of them, including but not limited to 
Microsoft's JAVA, DirectX, ``Win32'' and 
``Win16'' WinG, and any other such Interfaces that are 
available to applications, either third party or Microsoft's that 
are available on any standard Windows computer), and of the 
Microsoft Office formats, would encourage and stimulate competition 
in the Operating System and Office Suite arenas. First, there is 
currently a project called ``WINE'' (http://
www.winehq.org/-an application wrapper to run Windows 
applications on UNIX-like Operating Systems, most notably Linux) 
that is synonymous with Compaq's effort to reverse engineer the IBM 
BIOS, however, this project is far from complete, and still 
continues to have major problems in developing a system that will 
run anything more complicated than solitaire without problems. The 
opening of the Windows API will go a long way in not only improving 
the compatibility of projects such as wine, but it would allow them 
to run Windows applications almost identically as windows would 
natively. This would allow Operating Systems such as Linux and BSD 
(and the ill-fated BeOS and OS/2) to incorporate those API's into 
the System itself. This would have the effect of almost overnight, 
allowing many systems to run Windows applications as well as Windows 
itself does (if not better). This would allow for much greater 
competition in the Operating System market, such as users today do 
not have to worry about getting the video card that works with Epox, 
or Gigabyte motherboards, but rather only have to be sure that is 
uses the standard AGP interface. In the same way, a user would not 
have to worry about whether an application would work on Windows, or 
Linux, or perhaps even MacOS, but would only need to be sure that it 
uses the standard Universal Application Interface.
    The same reasoning applies to the Microsoft Office, if the 
Office formats were made open, then any application could integrate 
those formats into it's own file handling routines and be able to 
read and write Microsoft Word or Excel documents as well as Word or 
Excel itself. When that happens, just as with Windows, users will no 
longer have to get Microsoft Office to communicate with the rest of 
the business community, but rather only need to find an Office Suite 
that meets their needs and is capable of dealing with the standard 
Universal Document Formats.
    A one time opening however would not be enough to ensure further 
competition, Microsoft could easily circumvent the API's in the next 
version of Office and Windows, by making older API's continue to 
work, but with the stipulation that if a developer wants to use the 
new features of the latest versions of Windows and/or Office, then 
that developer would have to access the new closed proprietary API's 
(this is commonly referred to as Microsoft's embrace and extend 
strategy, by embracing a standard, then adding Microsoft Proprietary 
extensions to it so that Microsoft's implementation will work 
partially with other implementations, but only fully be able to work 
with other Microsoft implementations.) Therefore, it would be my 
suggestion that a standards committee be appointed to oversee the 
opening of the Windows API, and Office Document format, and then 
continue to oversee the further development of the new standards. 
Such a body, while could contain Microsoft representation, should 
also include other companies with an interest in those protocols. 
Comtpanies such as Apple Computer, RedHat, IBM, Sun Microsystems, 
and other companies that would have an interest in a Universal 
Application Interface would have equal vote in the committee, 
similarly, companies such as Sun Microsystems (StarOffice), Corel, 
IBM (Lotus), and other companies that would have in interest in a 
common Document format, would have positions on the Universal 
Document Format committee. Additionally, it is my opinion that if 
such a remedy were to be put in place, that Microsoft should then be 
required, for a period of perhaps five to fifteen or more years, to 
adhere to these standards and not be allowed to incorporate 
proprietary extensions. This period would allow competing Operating 
Systems to adhere to the standards, and allow for the market to 
adjust itself accordingly.
    It is my opinion, that any remedy short of the forced opening of 
the Application and Document interfaces and formats will not be 
adequate to fully address the lack of competition in the Operating 
system and Office suite markets. While this same remedy might also 
be applied to other areas of Microsoft's monopoly as well, such as 
their Internet Explorer browser, the primary area of concern for is 
currently the Windows Application Interface, and the Office Document 
Formats.
    Chris Hendrickson
    Computer Professional
    Chris Hendrickson
    QSS Group. Inc-MEDS
    NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
    Voice: (301) 867-0081 Fax: (301) 867-0089
    GSFC Email: Christopher. E. [email protected]
    QSS Email: [email protected]



MTC-00016643

From: Jim Rucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a 
terrible idea. It will not only NOT curb their anti-competitive 
practices, but will actually further them. For example, the proposed 
solution of Microsoft donating computers and software to schools 
will eliminate one of the last places in America where Apple still 
has some marketshare. How will Apple compete with a company that is 
giving away what they are trying to sell?! Had Microsoft done this 
outside of this settlement I would consider it to be an act of 
unfair business practice worthy of investigation, but to make it a 
part of an anti-trust settlement is ludicrous!
    As a software developer I know that if I have an idea for an 
incredible application that will change the world I wont make a 
penny on it. The reason why is that if I develope the product for 
Windows and Microsoft sees what a great idea it is they will make 
their own version. Then they will integrate it into the operating 
system and give it away for free. Their teams of lawyers will 
prevent me from receiving any settlement from them and Microsoft in 
the past has all but ignored judical decisions, amazingly without 
recourse. Their marketing department will make it appear as though 
they invented the idea and that my product is a blatent rip-off. 
Knowing this has caused me to cancel several projects that I have 
started since without a financial reward I would not be able to 
entice any investors to fund the creation of this software. There is 
no doubt in my mind that Microsoft has

[[Page 26289]]

shown little innovation in their entire company history, but has 
instead acted in a predatory and destructive manor. This antitrust 
lawsuit is the chance to finally slow Microsofts anti-competative 
behavior but unfortunately I read day after day of Microsofts 
undermining the whole process through proposed settlement that cause 
more harm than good being given the nod by people that either dont 
understand the issue or have been unduely influenced by Microsoft 
(such as the lawyers who have received floods of mail and email that 
has its origin from Microsoft).
    I hope this email is used to help influence those involved in 
the Microsoft antitrust suit into imposing more effective 
legislation.
    Sincerely
    James D Rucker



MTC-00016644

From: Patrick Mowry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Day,
    Here are my main complaints about the proposed final judgement. 
I will keep it brief. IT prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft 
towards OEMs, but allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products. I have worked for these 
smaller OEMs in the past. They are no longer in business because of 
practices like this.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these practices, the settlement is encouraging 
Microsoft to extend its monopoly, and to leverage it into new areas. 
This settlement is of no use to those it is supposed to protect, the 
people of the United States. I support measures defined in the state 
alternative settlement, but it also needs further review.
    Thank you for your time,
    Patrick M. Mowry
    1721 East Bruce Ave.
    Gilbert, AZ 85234



MTC-00016645

From: E THEJUDGE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Judge;
    We need a fair and level playing field in the US software 
industry. We surely do not have one now!
    I have been in the industry for almost 15 years, and I have seen 
Microsoft again and again abuse their monopoly power. Please ensure 
that Microsoft (they?re not called ?the beast of Redmond? for 
nothing) is obliged to honor the law just like everyone else.
    Your courageous stand on this difficult issue will be deeply 
appreciated.
    Sincerely yours.
    Mark Keckis
    4440 Rosewood Dr.
    Pleasanton, CA
    94552



MTC-00016646

From: Jeremiah Gilbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad 
idea.
    Jeremiah Gilbert, Moriah New York



MTC-00016647

From: Mike Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned with the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. I was very enthused to discover the 
Proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to finally open its APIs 
to Windows but after further investigation I discovered that the PFJ 
does not in fact require Microsoft to open the Windows APIs. It 
merely requires them to open the interfaces between Microsoft 
Middleware and Microsoft Windows. Opening the APIs should be opening 
the door all the way open and not just letting someone get their 
foot through the door only to find that's as far as they can go. The 
wording in the PFJ does not solve the problem. It helps but it's 
more of a dong and a dance than a real solution.
    Thank you for hearing my voice.
    Mike Heath
    1255 South Alpine Way
    Provo, Utah



MTC-00016648

From: Jaron Abbott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not provide adequate reparations to the hundreds of companies 
injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, nor does it limit 
its ability to commit similar actions in the future. Microsoft is 
still allowed to benefit from all their illegal acts, so long as 
they don't commit those acts again. This is not justice for their 
victims or the American people as a whole.
    Microsoft should become a government-regulated monopoly, at 
least until its market share drops below an acceptable level (e.g. 
the level of one of its competitors). This is the only way they will 
curtail their practices. Even when found guilty, they did not change 
their behavior. Microsoft's practices inhibit competition, reduce 
innovation, and thereby decrease employment and productivity in our 
nation. The United States is a successful country because a free 
market has encouraged firms to compete by producing high-quality, 
low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from monopolists 
who gain sufficient power to destroy the competitive nature of the 
market in which they participate. One possible solution would be 
forcing them to release source code, protocols, or something 
similar, so that other companies could compete. The current 
settlement shows that the government no longer has the power to 
enforce the laws that control our capitalistic country.
    Sincerely,
    Jaron Abbott



MTC-00016649

From: Dave Grogan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is not enough to punish Microsoft. The last few months the 
internet has been overwhelmed by the code red and nimda worms, which 
are directly related to sloppy code. We don't even want to talk 
about the outlook ``features.'' No one would use MS's 
products because there are much better alternatives out there, 
except that they have no choice.
    My opinion on a sufficient remedy:
    Break them up, so that each piece produces the same as the other 
pieces. Each pice would produce applications, operating systems, web 
browsers, etc. This will cause some healthy competition.
    OR
    Make them release all of their code under the GNU General Public 
License. This will at least let the entire programming population 
help secure their products.
    Microsoft's current state is unacceptable and needs major, major 
modification. This settlement is not enough.
    David Grogan



MTC-00016650

From: Brien Dieterle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am taking a Public Speaking class at Arizona State University. 
I was the only person shocked and appaled that we are required to 
use MS PowerPoint Presentations and MS Word documents. Required. 
There was no alternative.
    State Funded Universities should embrace free software, at the 
very least tolerate it and allow for diversity. The proposed 
settlement will only entrench these practices that are already in 
place.
    I disagree.
    Sincerely,
    Brien Dieterle



MTC-00016651

From: William Kilgore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,

[[Page 26290]]

    I am writing to urge that you reject the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft anti-trust case. I cannot fathom a legitimate reason 
why the Department of Justice, having won a decision that Microsoft 
was inviolation of the anti-trust laws, felt compelled to offer its 
unconditional surrender. The settlement will not only allow 
Microsoft to continue its abusive practices, it will offer them the 
legitimacy of doing so under a consent agreement that does not force 
them to change their ways.
    Please reject this settlement!
    William Kilgore
    Port Jefferson, NY



MTC-00016652

From: Hodgers, James
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: The proposed Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is definitely poor and unworkable. the 
restraints on Microsoft (MS) are meaningless, especially when you 
consider the lack of conformance by MS in preceeding actions.
    The have proved again and again that they consider themselves to 
be above the law. The flaws in the safeguards proposed in the 
settlement give MS ample room to negate any santion in the 
settlement. Also I believe this settlement does nothing to redress 
the losses to the community suffered as a result of MS's blatent use 
of their monopoly to gouge the consumer. In the period after the 
judgement they have continued to act in an illegal fashion to move 
their monopoly into other areas, using the monopoly in operating 
systems to force these new thrusts into the monopoly.
    James M. Hodgers
    Staff Associate, Controls Dept.
    Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
    2575 Sand Hill Rd
    Menlo Park, California
    [email protected]
    www.slac.stanford.edu



MTC-00016653

From: Pete Border
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would like to register my objections to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I believe that the proposed ``oversight 
committee'' is much too small, and much too restricted to have 
any effect. The Microsoft company culture is quite capable of 
``wballing'' the committee and, since the committee is 
bound by NDAs, it would be unable to get any help. I would recommend 
these changes:
    1. Increase the size of the oversight committee and include more 
outside people
    2. Publicize their deliberations on the web in pdf format
    3. Require the committees approval on all products shipped by 
Microsoft.
    I believe that anything less will not be effective.
    Thank you;
    Dr. Peter Border
    School of Physics and Astronomy
    University of Minnesota



MTC-00016654

From: Patrum, Frank
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing this letter to protest the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft antitrust case. This settlement proposal does not 
address the previous actions Microsoft has taken, but rather, tries 
to prevent them from committing these same illegal acts in the 
future. Microsoft has held little regard for the law in the past, 
and it is my belief that they will continue this attitude in the 
future. The settlement needs to be harsher towards Microsoft and 
actually punish them for their actions. The settlement also needs to 
set forth strict guidelines on Microsoft's future business 
practices, to allow their competitors fair and legal opportunities 
to produce their own products without fear of repercussions from 
Microsoft.
    I use several operating systems from Microsoft as well as Linux, 
and Solaris so I do not feel that Microsoft is an evil empire. I do 
believe, however, that their business practices are corrupt and that 
the Department of Justice (DOJ) needs to stand fast against the 
power of the almighty dollar and deal with Microsoft using a firm 
hand and the full force of the law. This settlement is an 
unacceptable breach of trust by the DOJ with the citizens of the 
United States and needs to be amended to hold more weight against 
Microsoft, else there will be more suits like this in the future. 
Law suits that will, in the long run, waste government time and tax-
payer money.
    I sincerely appreciate your time in reading this letter, and 
hope you take it as some confirmation that citizens of the United 
States do not believe that Microsoft should be spared harsh 
punishment for their breach of the law. Thank you.
    Frank Patrum
    Electrical Engineer II
    Raytheon
    7700 Arlington Blvd. Mail Stop N202
    Falls Church, VA 22042-2902
    (703) 560-5000 x4696
    (703) 208-1208 fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00016655

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer, have been a network administrator, 
and have been PC enthusiast since childhood. I will keep my comments 
on this situation short and to the point. I'm not going to try and 
list all of Microsoft's transgressions-they have already been 
found guilty of illegally using monopoly power. What I would like to 
impress upon you is the effect of their actions on the average 
computer user. How many times has your computer crashed without 
warning? How many times have you lost work because of a crash, 
costing you valuable time and effort? How many times has your 
computer done things without your knowledge or asking you? Have you 
ever wanted to just throw your computer out of the window because 
it's so difficult to work with?
    Everyone you and I know would answer yes to all of those 
questions. I bet everyone at the time was using the Windows 
operating system of some version or other. My point is, everyone 
(i.e. consumers) who have had these experiences and wished they 
could use something else, have not easily been able to, and 
considering this is America, that's ridiculous. I bought a new 
laptop a few months ago and could not buy one without Windows 
already installed (meaning I *had to pay* for something I did not 
want). Where is the choice in that? Why should I have to buy that 
awful operating system when all I wanted was the computer? I can 
install my own operating system-I don't need or want theirs. 
Not only that, I got a bum deal because I didn't even get the disks 
to reinstall it should it break, which it will, based on all my 
previous Microsoft Windows experience.
    It's not fair on the consumer, and the proposed settlement will 
only propagate that power. It's quite obvious that Microsoft are 
using this ``settlement'' to break into a portion of the 
market they don't actually dominate. Please do not let Microsoft do 
this. Punish them properly, and then stop the continuation of use of 
the monopoly leverage. Do not let them force computer manufacturer's 
to sell their product. Do not let them cripple software to only work 
properly with their own products without clearly informing the 
buyer/user.
    Do not let them force the user's of their products register 
their names, addresses, e-mail addresses and computer hardware with 
them just to ``use'' their operating system. Please 
rectify this intolerable situation so that ``average'' 
computer users can make choices without fear of purposeful non-
interoperablity. If consumers cannot be monetarily compensated, then 
please compensate them with actually stopping the illegal use of 
monopoly power, and opening up the barriers to entry so that other 
companies may compete with them on an even playing field.
    Thanks,
    Veesa Norman,
    Washington DC.



MTC-00016656

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been found a monopoly. The DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft does not go nearly far enough to contain the anti-
competitive practices of Microsoft. Microsoft has continued to use 
its operating system monopoly on the desktop to unfairly compete 
with other software application and operating system companies by 
bundling applications. This has resulted in harm to the consumer by 
reducing competition and choice.
    Thank you,
    Mark Holbrook
    5770 W. Antelope Rd
    Pocatello, ID 83201
    CC:Mark Holbrook



MTC-00016657

From: Fish Christopher G Contr 46 TS/OGET
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''

[[Page 26291]]

Date: 1/23/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer. I am very concerned that the judgment 
against Microsoft is not in anyway strict enough. I do not believe 
it has sufficient power to lower the entry barriers to competing 
products that Microsoft has created by abusing it's monopoly. 
Specifically I believe it is very necessary to have 100% disclosure 
of the windows API. The definition currently being used for API is 
limited to the API as it relates to middleware products. If it is 
going to be possible for us to make software the competes reasonably 
with the software that Microsoft puts in its operating system as 
middleware it is VERY necessary to have full knowledge of the entire 
win32 API. ( for instance the installer API).
    Failure on this point will make the Judgment against Microsoft 
almost completely ineffective.



MTC-00016658

From: Ryan Swartzendruber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement with Microsoft is a bad deal for the 
public. Settling by allowing Microsoft to solidify its position of 
dominance with donations to schools is outrageous.
    -Ryan Swartzendruber



MTC-00016659

From: Ethan Schlenker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft is a ``Bad Thing'' as the 
punishment does not fit the crime. Rather than actually suffer for 
their transgressions, they would benefit from the long term outcome 
of the settlement. So please reconsider the decision.
    thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Ethan Schlenker



MTC-00016660

From: H. William Connors II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to express my opinion on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I do not believe that the proposed settlement will 
effectively curtail the Microsoft monopoly. Unlike the AT&T 
monopoly and breakup I don't believe the proposed Microsoft solution 
doesn't have sufficient provisions for eliminating or even 
preventing future monopolistic practices.
    I feel a better solution would more closely mimic the AT&T 
solution. I would suggest that breaking the company up and then 
applying some additional constraints to those individual companies 
is the right solution. I would therefore break the company into the 
following 2 or 3 pieces. I would split the company into an Operating 
Systems company and an Applications company. If the decision is made 
that Internet Explorer is an integral part of the Operating System, 
I would create a third company which is comprised of the Microsoft 
Services such as MSN and its E-commerce components and technologies 
such as passport.
    Constraints for the Operating Systems company:
    I would required that all technical documentation (i.e. API 
specifications, etc) be licensed in a manner similar to that 
specified at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy1.html 
``Microsoft shall disclose and license to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, 
ICPs, OEMs and Third-Party Licensees, on an ongoing, basis and in a 
Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft customarily disseminates 
such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical 
Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to 
enable:...'' where: ``The aforementioned license shall 
grant a royalty-free, non-exclusive perpetual right on a non-
discriminatory basis to use this information to create independent 
implementions of the APIs so disclosed.'' and: 
``ISV'' means any entity (including without limitation the 
Open Source community) other than Microsoft... This documentation 
should be made available to all interested parties at the same time 
as it is made available to the Microsoft applications company.
    In order to ensure equality for all application developers, I 
feel that the microsoft development suite (i.e. Visual Studio) 
should remain with the operating system groups. This creates a level 
playing field in that all application developers will have access to 
the same optimizations and development libraries to access core OS 
resources.
    In addition the service aspects of the .NET technologies should 
be removed from Operating systems group. This technology and its 
corresponding services are extremely powerful and useful. I fear 
however that they are the next major area of monopolistic concern. 
As the internet becomes even more pervasive, these technologies have 
the potential to lookout other technologies, applications, and 
platforms from the internet. The fact that microsoft is bundling 
this technology with the operating system almost guarantees them a 
monopoly on the internet. The internet has to be kept an open and 
level playing field.
    Constraints for the Applications company: I feel that it is 
important to offer individuals the ability to run an operating 
system free of choice and not be limited by application availablity. 
While I would like to see the Office suite available on multiple 
operating systems, I don't know that that is necessary to be 
enforced by a court. Instead I think interoperability is more 
important and thus I feel the file format should be made public. 
This will allow other application (cross operating systems) to be 
able to reliably and accurately interchange data. This format should 
be made available under a license similar to that describe for the 
operating systems API. In addition the file format should be 
available to those interested parties atleast by the release date of 
office.
    I also feel it is important that if a process is put in place 
for the Applications group to request features and/or report bugs in 
the operating system that that process be made available to those 
interested parties which licensed the operating system API. In 
addition this process should implemented in such a manner as not to 
biased to the Microsoft applications company.
    Constraints for the Services Company:
    The more I think about .NET and some of the services it 
provides, the more I think the right solution is to create a 
services company. Again this company should be forced to license 
their API's under a similar agreement to that of the OS APIs.
    Bill
    H. William Connors II
    [email protected]
    Software Engineer
    The Rochester Group, Inc.



MTC-00016661

From: Joseph Lyman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Over the past several years my attention has been drawn to the 
questionable business and political practices of Microsoft 
Corporation, the high profile company involved in this case. As an 
informed consumer, and as a business owner in the technologies 
industry it has become increasingly apparent that Microsoft is 
unable to operate in a manner condusive to our free market.
    One concern that stands out in particular is the manner in which 
Microsoft Corp. handles its dealer relations with Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEM's). These OEM companies are responsible for an 
increasingly large percentage of all North American computer sales 
and are thus an important and key distribution point for any 
software makers.
    Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it cannot act responsibly in 
its relations with OEM dealers. The settlements that have been 
proposed do address this matter, but with very little resolution or 
restriction and thus very little assurance that anything will 
change.
    Below are a few arguments that have been made in general 
concerning this matter (quoted): ``The PFJ prohibits certain 
behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, but curiously allows the 
following exclusionary practices:
    ``Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against 
any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing 
Operating System but no Microsoft operating system.
    ``Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on 
uniform terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says 
nothing about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate 
against smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white 
box'' OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    ``Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified 
Market Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to 
OEMs. For instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to 
OEMs based on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to 
leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to 
increase its market share in other areas, such as office software or 
ARM-compatible operating systems.

[[Page 26292]]

    ``By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging 
Microsoft to extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating 
systems, and to leverage it into new areas.``
    I agree wholeheartedly with these arguments and would encourage 
the Departement of Justice to reconsider its actions with Microsoft 
Corp. Futhermore I would recommend that any action taken should 
address the above concerns and help restore the market that 
Microsoft has destroyed.
    Thank you for your time in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Daniel Lyman
    Partner, CIO Exacura Professional Technologies
    Tigard, OR 97223
    [email protected]



MTC-00016662

From: David Buzz Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a terrible idea. They cannot be allowed to 
walk away from the damage they've done to the industry.
    In the mid-90s I co-owned a small computer graphics company. As 
a sideline, we also built computers for some of our clients, and had 
registered with Microsoft as an OEM. We only built about a dozen 
machines a year, though, and after two years decided it wasn't 
profitable enough to continue offering this service. As a result, we 
stopped ordering OEM packs.
    Soon we received a letter from Microsoft's lawyers claiming 
that, since we were no longer ordering copies of Windows 95, we must 
be pirating their software. (This was completely baseless, by the 
way. I'm a straight shooter.) They actually stated in their letter 
that the only way we could avoid legal action by Microsoft was to 
immediately begin ordering copies of Windows 95 at our former rate.
    In other words, Microsoft was going to take us to court because 
we weren't buying as much of their product as they thought we 
should. I believe that to be extortion. My partner had a lawyer 
friend contact them, and they called off the dogs. But it left a 
sour taste in my mouth, and has turned me into someone no one wants 
to mention Microsoft around.
    These people are arrogant, vicious greedheads that will do 
anything to win. They think they are above the law. Please don't 
prove them right. They are criminals that have destroyed a lot of 
lives in the technology sector, and they must be dealt with harshly.
    Anything less than a breakup is capitulation.
    Sincerely,
    David Bryant
    P.S. Please don't fall for their P.R. ``innovation'' 
nonsense. Ask any good programmer.



MTC-00016663

From: Brendan Byrd/SineSwiper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement (PS) is flawed. Because of many 
different legal loopholes in the PS, Microsoft will be able to find 
ways to easily exploit their customers and OEMs to their advantage. 
Microsoft has already extended, or tried to extend, their monopoly 
since the start of the trial, such as:
    * Microsoft .NET and MS's plans to force everybody to sign for a 
MS Passport (which has already been proven to be a very insecure 
system)
    * The failed attempt to turn an educational lawsuit into a way 
to inject their software into yet another market
    * Imposing highly-restrictive EULAs and license agreements in XP 
to try to milk as much money as possible from the end user and 
businesses, which has already forced other governments (such as the 
UK and China) to consider other options besides MS software
    * Using PR stunts to hide the fact that security was never a 
major concern of any of their products, and never will be (even 
though recent developments in Windows XP and Internet Explorer have 
proven this)
    * Starting petty lawsuits to snuff out competition, in the hopes 
of running them out of money (such as the recent Lindows lawsuit)
    * Rigging web polls and writing fake letters (from people 
already long dead and buried) to influence business and DoJ 
decisions
    The government's intentions in the PS are in good faith, but the 
language puts too much faith in MS's interpretation of it. Dan Kegel 
has a great analysis of the flaws found in the PS here: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html In short, I feel that it's the 
DoJ's duty to revamped the PS and/or return to the drawing board, as 
its current revision is not enough to stop Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices.
    Brendan Byrd/SineSwiper
    
    Web Programmer @ Resonator Software
    (www.ResonatorSoft.org)



MTC-00016664

From: Karl Bellve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is wrong. It does nothing to 
limit Microsoft in the future.
    Microsoft must done the following: 1) Make Windows OpenSource 2) 
No longer include programs such as Explorer as part of the base 
distribution of windows. 3) If microsoft must include Explorer, then 
includer competing programs. 4) Microsoft must make Office available 
to any OS with a large distrubtion including Linux. Released 
versions of Office must be the same for every OS.
    Cheers,
    Karl Bellve, Ph.D.
    ICQ # 13956200
    Biomedical Imaging Group TLCA# 7938
    University of Massachusetts
    Email: [email protected]
    Phone: (508) 856-6514
    Fax: (508) 856-1840
    PGP Public key: finger
    [email protected]



MTC-00016665

From: George Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    As a citizen of the United States, and a worker in the computer 
software industry for over 20 years, I would like to provide you 
with my comments on the Federal governments proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. Please, please, call upon God to provide you the wisdom 
and the courage to arrive at a moral and just decision in this case. 
With this prayer, I am sure you will not go wrong. In addition, I 
must tell you my view: it is plainly obvious to anyone that 
Microsoft is a monopoly, has abused this position to the detriment 
of the entire world and especially to it's competitors, that the 
current remedy proposed by Microsoft and the Federal representatives 
is woefully inadequate, and that since Microsoft has been given 
much, much must be expected from it. Please consider these comments 
in your deliberations. God speed.
    George B. Smith
    [email protected]



MTC-00016666

From: Rod Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to express my concern over the proposed settlement 
in the United States v. Microsoft case. In my opinion, the proposed 
settlement is an ineffectual ``slap on the wrist'' for a 
company that has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of respect for both 
the law and prevailing free market practices.
    As I understand it, the proposed settlement places various minor 
restrictions on how Microsoft may do business, such as requiring 
that they offer the same terms to all OEMs who license their OS. In 
last decade's big Microsoft case, however, similar restrictions were 
imposed on Microsoft, and the company managed to find loopholes to 
carry on as it had done before. I see no reason why Microsoft would 
not do the same this time around, ensuring another 5-10 years 
of its predatory business tactics.
    Indeed, I am very concerned about the growing influence of 
Microsoft in society as a whole. Microsoft has been releasing 
proprietary products, tools, and services is so many areas that, if 
even a tiny fraction of them gain the sort of dominance that Windows 
and Office have in the general computing field, Microsoft will 
possess an unacceptable amount of power over society at large. 
Microsoft has proven by its actions (both legal and illegal) that it 
is not above using (in fact, I would argue, ABUSING) the power it 
has to increase its profits and crush all competition, without 
regard to the needs or rights of its customers.
    Finally, I believe that Microsoft's dominance of the computer 
industry not only stifles innovation but is a threat to the security 
of all information systems. The past year has seen the release of 
increasingly powerful viruses and worms, such as Code

[[Page 26293]]

Red and Nimda. These worms can do significant damage only in what's 
known as a ``monoculture''-an environment in which a 
single system dominates the landscape. If Microsoft faced real 
competition, the security of the Internet would be greatly enhanced, 
because no one worm or virus could damage more than a few percent of 
the Internet's computers.
    In sum, I believe that the proposed settlement will be 
ineffectual at correcting Microsoft's behaviors. Microsoft has 
repeatedly demonstrated a lack of respect for the law, and so the 
remedy should take much more radical steps to correct Microsoft's 
past wrongs and ensure that the company doesn't fall into its old 
behaviors. The states' proposed remedy is better able to meet these 
goals, but there are also many other proposals from which to choose.
    Rod Smith
    [email protected]
    http://www.rodsbooks.com



MTC-00016667

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00016668

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's not right, and I expect you know it.
    If most roads were designed to be easily usable by only one make 
of car, and that manufacturer began to include gasoline with the 
cars, noone would consider letting him get away with it. For most 
people, windows is not optional. For instance, even though I have 
the skills to do without it, i'm forced to use it in my work by my 
company's choice of applications. It's not better, just unavoidable, 
and Microsoft has used that position to prevent competition. I can't 
imagine destroying them, but they should be prevented from cheating 
in the future. This means actually prevented, not allowed to sign a 
``consent decree'', ignore it, and then be forgiven.
    Tim Conway
    [email protected]
    303.682.4917
    Philips Semiconductor-Longmont TC
    1880 Industrial Circle, Suite D
    Longmont, CO 80501



MTC-00016669

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    It is my considered opinion as a mathematician and computer 
scientist of long standing (Ph.D., MIT: 1978) that the combination 
of Microsoft's software design practices and continued aggressively 
linking monopolies across software disciplines constitutes a serious 
risk both to the national security and to the economic interests of 
the United States as a whole.
    Microsoft has aggressively pursued a strategy of tying across 
its entire product line. This is evident not only in its sales 
practices but also in the behavior of its upgrades: for example, it 
has been all but impossible for ordinary users to upgrade 
-any- Microsoft product (whether operating system or 
office software) without both installing Microsoft's 
``Outlook'' email software and also overriding the user's 
installed email software with ``Outlook''.
    This tying across product lines affects both the national 
economic interest ant the national security because of inherent 
vulnerabilities in Microsoft's software design practices. This past 
year has been a bad year for so-called ``worms'' and 
``viruses'' damaging information systems and causing 
denial of service all over the Internet. Network consulting guru 
Jakob Nielsen (see http://www.useit.com/) estimates this past year's 
consequent economic damage as in excess of $170 Billion.
    I have personally experienced two days of complete network 
outage due to serious Outlook-worm attacks to backbone provider 
Verozon (who have not admitted it publically; however, MCNC is 
responsible for backbone load analysis for the southeast, and the 
load-signature of these attacks is unmistakeable.)
    More than 80% of those attacks are ``Outlook'' 
specific: they do not affect other email software (such as the 
previous market-leader ``Eudora'') at all. More than 98% 
of the attacks are Microsoft specific. The reason for these 
vulnerabilities is inherent in Microsoft's ``active 
content'' document design, where documents are no longer simply 
data to be processed or viewed, but are actually programs (written 
in ``Visual Basic'' with ``ActiveX'' controls) 
that can take over the user's computer and compromise it. This makes 
it easy for Microsoft to provide ``glitz'' but at the 
expense of using an approach which is inherently insecure. (Of the 
remaining 2% of network attacks, a large majority are due to 
other-cross-platform-``active content'' 
attacks, specifically employing JavaScript and Java!)
    Hundreds of billions of dollars in consequent damages to the 
national information infrastructure mean that it is in the national 
interest to prevent this kind of cross-system tying. Furthermore, it 
is in the national security interest to ensure that Federal Interest 
Computers are not subject to the kinds of attacks that Microsoft has 
made possible. I think the following remedies are in order:
    1. Microsoft must be made to stop the software-level tying 
between different kinds of software systems. Specifically, there 
should not be shared content between:
    (a) operating systems;
    (b) application software;
    (c) network server software.
    If achieving this means splitting the company along these lines 
into three separate entities, then so be it.
    2. Microsoft software, with its vulnerable cross-system ties, 
should not be allowed on Federal Interest Computers. Arguably, it 
should not be allowed on any system networked to a Federal Interest 
Computer, but that latter is admittedly a rather drastic step.
    3. Microsoft's ``patches'' and ``upgrades'' 
should be required to confine themselves to the ostensible purpose 
that they have; they should be forbidden to change other software 
systems on the user's computer without express notice and consent.
    4. Microsoft's upgrade practices, in which the upgrade-system 
silently replaces the user's email software setup with 
``Outlook'', has had that effect on current Federal 
Interest Computers that historically used (for example) 
``Eudora'' but have been forced into using 
``Outlook''. Arguably, this upgrade-with-change 
constitutes felonious unauthorized access to a Federal Interest 
Computer. This felony should be prosecuted aggressively.
    Sincerely,
    Carlie J. Coats, Jr., Ph.D.
    [email protected]
    MCNC-Environmental Modeling Center
    phone: (919) 248-9241
    North Carolina Supercomputing Center
    fax: (919) 248-9245
    3021 Cornwallis Road
    P.O. Box 12889
    Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709-2889
    USA
    ``My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of 
them!''



MTC-00016670

From: Sam Mertens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. Among many 
other shortcomings, it fails to address the contempt for the legal 
process shown by the Microsoft Corporation in the past and takes no 
steps to discourage it in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Sam Mertens



MTC-00016671

From: Ty Hedrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Summary: The proposed settlement is too favorable to Microsoft, 
much stronger measures are required to keep the company from abusing 
its monopoly. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests 
of the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial. Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices are counter to the law and spirit of our free-
enterprise system. These practices inhibit competition, reduce 
innovation, and thereby decrease employment and productivity in our 
nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition. The finding of 
fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict 
measures which address not only the practices they have engaged in 
in the past, but which also prevent them from engaging in other 
monopolistic practices in the future. It is my belief that a very 
strong set of strictures must be placed on convicted monopolists to 
insure that they are unable to continue their illegal activities. I 
do not think

[[Page 26294]]

that the proposed settlement is strong enough to serve this 
function.
    Sincerely,
    Ty Hedrick
    Tyson L. Hedrick
    ph: (781) 275 1725 x17
    Concord Field Station
    Harvard University
    Old Causeway Road
    Bedford, MA 01730



MTC-00016672

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-NO
    The proposed Microsoft settlement terms are ridiculous. 
Microsoft still hasn't even admitted any wrongdoing or made any 
changes to their behavior, despite the courts finding them guilty of 
illegal monopolistic activities. The settlement would allow 
Microsoft to not only continue their illegal behavior, but would 
reward them with increased visibility and market share by letting 
them ``donate'' their unsold products to schools, at 
essentially zero cost to them! Remember, software doesn't cost 
anything to copy, and any old PCs have already been depreciated to 
zero. And where are the schools going to purchase software upgrades? 
The settlement also doesn't require Microsoft to pay any damages to 
the companies it hurt through its illegal acts.
    The whole point of having a court case at all is to make 
Microsoft stop doing illegal things, not to reward them for it!
    Please REJECT this settlement in favor of one that would 
actually punish Microsoft and make them change their behavior in the 
future.
    Dr. William F. Richardson
    495 Wildwood Way
    Santa Clara, CA 95054



MTC-00016673

From: Thomas Streeter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a published scholar on the history and regulation of 
communication technology.
    I am writing to register my objection to the current proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft case. The Microsoft monopoly-which 
is a byproduct of network externalities, not the quality of the 
company's software-stifles innovation, pure and simple; start 
up companies can not get funded if they will compete with microsoft, 
innovative progams that conflict with Microsoft policies are 
marginalized, etc. The current proposed settlement does not get to 
the cause of the problem nor will it result in any substantial 
improvement.
    There are many different possible remedies, but the current 
proposal is not one of them. I strongly urge you to reconsider the 
Justice Department's current stand on the issue.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Thomas Streeter



MTC-00016674

From: Jeffrey Bridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Bridge



MTC-00016675

From: Evan Coyne Maloney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft will continue to be a monopoly as long as Microsoft 
Office remains a ``closed'' system. Office is 
``closed'' in that its file formats are known only to 
Microsoft and are not available to the general public.
    This is a barrier to entry because everybody uses Microsoft 
Office currently. The documents get e-mailed around within companies 
and between companies. Owning Office is required to read these 
documents fully, so therefore buying Office is a cost of doing 
business, like buying phones or a fax machine. (Except that you can 
get phones or a fax machine from multiple vendors.)
    Microsoft's stranglehold on businesses in this regard would be 
reduced if: 1. In the short run, they were forced to publish the 
file formats and make them freely available. 2. In the long run, 
they should be forced to give up control of the file formats to a 
standards body, much like the W3C is a standards body for HTML and 
XML. Further, Microsoft should be forced to use the recommendations 
of the standards body as their file format, with fines levied if it 
is determined that they are ``not fully compatible'' with 
the standard. (Being partially compatible with HTML is a trick that 
Microsoft used to beat down Netscape.) They should be enjoined from 
shipping Office until the file formats are opened up.
    This would be a reasonable solution, since Microsoft would 
retain their assets (Office), but at the same time, other companies 
could build products that are compatible with Office without having 
to pay ``the Microsoft tax'' in the form of licensing 
fees.
    Evan Coyne Maloney
    evancm@nac,com



MTC-00016676

From: Tom Arons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the proposed settlement will in any way 
inhibit Microsoft from behaving in the same anti-competitive, 
predatory way that they have in the past. Tom Arons Director of 
Computing Center for Image Processing and Interactive Computing 
University of California Davis, CA 95616



MTC-00016677

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is nothing 
more than a sell-out to Microsoft and a betrayal of justice. To 
refer to the settlement as a remedy is almost laughable, especially 
as Microsoft continues to strengthen and grow its monopolistic power 
with Windows XP, Product Activation, Digital Rights Management 
features, License 6.0, etc. I realize that the will of the people is 
irrelevant in the face of the political power of Microsoft and its 
supporters, but I still wish to go on record opposing the alleged 
settlement with Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Robert B. Wamble II
    622 G Street
    Ramona, CA 92065



MTC-00016678

From: Yanchou Han
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a very very bad idea!
    Best Regards
    Yanchou Han
    Thanks
    Yanchou Han



MTC-00016679

From: Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a vote against the current settlement in the Microsoft 
case. The current settlement does not reprimand Microsoft for it's 
past illegal actions and will not stop Microsoft from continuing 
it's monopolistic practices.
    Scott Blichfeldt
    618 Palm Bay Ct. #109
    Orlando, FL 32825



MTC-00016680

From: hands
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea! It is imperative 
that Microsoft is not

[[Page 26295]]

allowed to continue with its anticompetitive and monopolistic 
tactics.



MTC-00016681

From: Artur Kedzierski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the settlement. It does not stimulate 
competition and is not effective in punishing them.
    Artur Kedzierski
    US Citizen
    Graduate Student in Computer Science
    1059 Horseshoe Bend
    Walnut, CA 91789-4414
    Kedzierski, [email protected]
    Computer Science Graduate Division
    University of California, Riverside



MTC-00016682

From: Cushing Whitney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As provided for by the Tunney Act, I wish to add to the public 
record my comments on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in the cases 
of US v Microsoft and State of New York ex. rel. v Microsoft.
    As an Economist by training (undergraduate and graduate degrees 
in economics from Carnegie Mellon University and Columbia University 
respectively) and an IT professional by career choice, It is clear 
to me that the provisions supplied by the PFJ will not be sufficient 
to undo the existing distortions in the market for Intel-compatible 
operating systems and software, not will they spur the competition 
necessary to induce the market to reverse the distortions itself. 
Furthermore, the lack of substantive financial penalties undermines 
the deterrent effect of future anti-trust action in the future 
against Microsoft or other companies. Therefore, I urge the court to 
reject the PFJ as not being in the public's best interest.
    The key to Microsoft's market power lies in the fact that it has 
two interlocking monopolies. First is its monopoly in the market for 
Intel-compatible operating systems. Second is its monopoly in the 
market for Office-Productivity Applications. Either of these alone 
represent substantial distortions in the marketplace. Together, they 
represent an almost irresistible force for the ``lock-in'' 
of consumers. Given that a large measure of the value in Information 
Technology comes from the positive network externalities of being 
able to communicate with other computer users. This communication is 
only feasible when the disparate systems understand the same 
``language'' in addition to being able to just contact 
each other. The PFJ ignores that fact that while the TCP/IP protocol 
and the Internet have made it easy for heterogeneous computer 
systems to contact each other, there are still substantial barriers 
to the exchange of content-rich communications due to proprietary 
file formats. Thus, while it is easy for two users of Microsoft 
Windows and Office to exchange richly-formatted documents, They are 
unable to have the same sort of exchange with a user of another 
system due to the closed nature of Microsoft's file format. It is 
this network effect that provides the power in Microsoft's 
interlocking monopoly. In order to exchange documents with the 
majority of other users in the network, one must use Microsoft 
Office. Because Microsoft Office only runs on Microsoft Windows on 
Intel-compatible machines (a version is available for machines using 
Motorola's PowerPC architecture running MacOS), then the user must 
use Windows as well. Thus, each monopoly supports the other by 
forcing a user to adopt both in order to receive the benefit of the 
network effect.
    This problem can and should be addressed by two means: enabling 
file format compatibility and enabling API compatibility. The PFJ 
does not address the former and ineffectively addresses the latter. 
By requiring that Microsoft fully and openly document, in a timely 
fashion, the file structure used by Microsoft Office applications, 
competitors could create filters in their applications to read and 
write Microsoft formats effortlessly. Not only would this spur 
competition in the Office Productivity application market under 
Microsoft Windows, but this would allow application developers using 
other Intel-compatible operating systems to create Office 
Productivity applications on their respective platforms that could 
inter-operate with Microsoft Office. Having Microsoft Office-
compatible applications would give other operating systems the power 
to compete with Microsoft Windows in terms of providing positive 
network effects to its users, thus enhancing competition in the 
Intel-compatible operating system market. Barring the above 
solution, competition in the operating system market could be 
enhanced by ensuring that Microsoft Office is available for multiple 
Intel-compatible operating systems either by requiring that 
Microsoft produce the suite for additional platforms, or by 
requiring that they auction off or license the rights to 
``port'' Microsoft Office to other platforms. Such a move 
is less desirable than the compatibility route because, while it 
enhances competition in the Operating System market, it leaves the 
market for Office productivity applications untouched and still 
monopolized.
    The issue of API compatibility is addressed by the PFJ by 
requiring Microsoft to disclose its APIs to interested parties with 
a number of provisos. It is these conditions that make the 
disclosure of Microsoft's APIs unlikely to have a significant effect 
on enhancing competition. First, Microsoft will be allowed to 
withhold the disclosure to APIs where such disclosures 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'' (section 3.J.1). The language in the PFJ 
is broad enough that Microsoft would be able to shoehorn large 
portions of the Windows API into the exemption, thus subverting the 
spirit of the measure. In addition, while the goal of ensuring the 
security of computer software is laudable, many information security 
experts agree the open disclosure of security-related APIs generally 
results in more secure and robust software than does the procedure 
of ``security through obscurity''. Microsoft would also be 
allowed to limit to whom they disclose their APIs based on whether 
the requester meets ``reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business'' (section 3.J.2). By allowing 
Microsoft to choose its competitors based on business model, the PFJ 
undermines the ability of open-source software developers, the one 
group that presents a significant competitive challenge to 
Microsoft, to create software that is competitive but inter-operable 
with Microsoft products. Such developers are generally either 
individuals or small groups who are developing such products to suit 
their own needs, but, in the process of openly releasing their code, 
provide value to all users. These developers rarely create such 
software for commercial purposes and those that do tend not to be 
large operations that would pass Microsoft's scrutiny. To allow 
Microsoft to exclude such developers based on the fact that they are 
not producing software as a business would represent a great loss to 
the ability to enhance competition in the market.
    Finally, the lack of financial penalties in the PFJ allows 
Microsoft to keep all of the ``ill-gotten gains'' of its 
monopoly position. While it is vitally important to correct market 
distortions and restore competition going forward, Microsoft should 
not be allowed to benefit from the past and its illegal monopoly. An 
approach similar to environmental regulations, where polluters bear 
the costs of remediating the environment they spoiled, could be 
employed here. By using monetary fines from Microsoft to create a 
development fund, the government, or other trustee, could help fund 
projects that would create freely-available software that would 
compete and inter-operate with Microsoft products, while forcing 
Microsoft, in effect, to remediate the business environment that it 
spoiled. Such a move would not only bring competition into the 
market, but would provide a large return to society as whole in the 
availability of high-quality, free software to help in reducing the 
digital divide.
    In summary, the PFJ does not represent a viable means of 
remedying the illegal actions of Microsoft as determined by Judge 
Jackson and as unanimously approved by the full Court of Appeals. 
Based on this, I once again urge the court to reject the PFJ and 
quickly proceed to a new remedy hearing.
    Sincerely,
    Cushing Whitney
    Information Security Consultant
    Hoboken, NJ
    917-328-7263



MTC-00016683

From: Chris Chuter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am

[[Page 26296]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I am a US citizen and I would like to respond to the proposed 
microsoft settlement. In the aftermath of the Enron debacle, we, as 
citizens, need our justice department more than ever to protect us 
from the avarice of big business. It's is clear to me, that this 
settlement does extremely little. It appears that the Attorney 
Generals are either scared of Microsoft or unduly influenced by 
Microsoft's money.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of a crime. Now it's time for 
the punishment phase. Please punish Microsoft. The settlement as it 
currently stands does more to encourage Microsoft to continue its 
monopolistic practices than punish. Hopefully, you've received 
enough letters by now to provide proper analysis and details to 
prove that this settlement is laughingly weak. I know my words are 
inadequate. But, Please understand, this is an emphatic,heartfelt 
plea to do right by your fellow citizens and punish a wrong doer.
    Thank for your time and this public forum,
    Chris Chuter
    4608 Ave H
    Austin, TX 78751
    ``Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable 
from magic.'' -Arthur C. Clarke
    Chris Chuter
    Magic Earth, LLC
    [email protected]
    http://www.magic-earth.com/



MTC-00016684

From: Dan Berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading and careful consideration of the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement, I felt the need to stand up and be counted. 
The proposed settlement has many fatal flaws, each of which alone 
would be enough to render it ineffective.
    Dan Kegel has written a well considered analysis of many of 
these flaws, which can be found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html
    Dan Berger [[email protected]]
    http://home.ix.netcom.com/dberger
    Inter arma silent leges
    ``Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to 
protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men 
born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their 
liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk 
in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without 
understanding.''
    Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928) A982 
E6B1 CB2F 7A49 843A 9297 DA73 4371 1F54 8D0C



MTC-00016685

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Roscoe Harris



MTC-00016686

From: Sven Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad 
idea, because while the courts have found real evidence of monopoly 
action, all that the proposed settlement will do is slap Microsoft 
on the wrist while doing nothing to actually change or alter their 
business practices will allow them to remain a monopoly power, and 
make it that much more difficult for others to stop Microsoft's 
monopoly activities in the future. Also remember that the axiom 
``any settlement the opponent likes is probably a bad 
one'' is quite true.
    Thank you for allowing me to comment,
    -Sven



MTC-00016687

From: Jake Cromley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Proposed Final Judgment is a BAD idea.
    I feel that it will in NO WAY remedy the effects of its past 
unlawful conduct.



MTC-00016688

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! DO THE RIGHT THING FOR AMERICAN FREEDOM 
AND COMPETITION DON'T LET THIS CORPORATE GIANT GET AWAY WITH THE 
TACTICS IT HAS BEEN USING FOR YEARS TO ATTEMPT DOMINATION OF THE 
COMPUTER MARKET.
    I have been experimenting and it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to do 
business on the internet now without using microsoft in some way. 
Microsoft is the worst sort of corporate monster, they havent payed 
any corporate income taxes in years! please dont let them get away 
with stifling our future!
    Capp Maberry
    204 w Simpson #3
    Eureka CA 95501



MTC-00016689

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe that the proposed settlement is not in the best 
interests of the citizens of the US. The courts have declared 
Microsoft a monopoly and yet even pro-Microsoft industry analysts 
have considered the DOJ settlement nothing more than a wrist slap. I 
believe that Microsoft stifles competition.
    Scott Narowetz



MTC-00016690

From: Jeffrey Bridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Bridge



MTC-00016691

From: John McCain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft settlement. I do not believe the 
settlement does anything to impede Microsoft's ability

[[Page 26297]]

to maintain its monopoly, and in fact that it will help to further 
it. It is my desire that the issue be decided in court and that an 
appropriate penalty for Microsoft's monopolistic business practices 
be rendered. Furthermore, I am hopeful that a judgment against 
Microsoft will contain sufficient punitive measures to dissuade 
other like minded individuals and organizations from engaging in the 
kind of illegal activity Microsoft has perpetrated.



MTC-00016692

From: Daniel Boyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a resident of the state of New York, and I work as a 
computer system administrator at the State University of New York at 
Buffalo. I am writing to you as a private citizen; the University 
does not review or endorse this e-mail.
    I believe the proposed settlement to the Microsoft antitrust 
case does not usefully lower the applications barrier to entry. It 
should require the disclosure of file formats; it should require the 
disclosure of network protocols; and it should forbid Microsoft from 
prohibiting reverse engineering in license agreements.

DISCLOSURE OF PROPRIETARY FILE FORMATS

    Proprietary file formats, such as the Microsoft Word .DOC 
format, or the Excel .XLS format, form a powerful part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry. Since their documentation is only 
available from Microsoft under Non-Disclosure Agreements, it is not 
possible for third parties to write software to reliably 
interoperate with Word or Excel.
    You can try to write a program that will edit a .DOC 
file-and many people have-but unless you're working from 
the Microsoft documentation on the precise format of the file, you 
must determine the file format through the difficult process of 
reverse engineering. Microsoft should be required to disclose the 
file formats for its products, especially Microsoft Office. Such 
disclosure should be required seven months in advance of the release 
of any product which relies on such a format.

DISCLOSURE OF NETWORK PROTOCOLS

    It is not currently possible for another manufacturer to compete 
directly with the Microsoft Outlook e-mail client product, nor with 
the Microsoft Exchange e-mail server product, because the protocol 
by which the Outlook client communicates with the Exchange server is 
not disclosed.
    Were the protocol disclosed, it would be possible to write 
alternate client implementations for use with the Exchange server; 
and it would be possible to write alternate server implementations 
for use with the Outlook client.
    Microsoft should be required to disclose the file formats for 
its products, especially Microsoft Exchange and Microsoft Outlook. 
Such disclosure should be required seven months in advance of the 
release of any product which relies on such a protocol.

PROHIBITION OF REVERSE ENGINEERING

    As the Microsoft Windows product has been shown to have a 
monopoly share of the market for desktop operating systems, it forms 
such a large part of the competitive environment for any other 
product as to be like a force of nature. For meaningful competition 
to exist, it must be possible for other entities to discover as much 
information about Windows as is necessary for them to write a 
competing product; Microsoft prohibits such discovery through the 
use of clauses in license agreements forbidding reverse engineering.
    Microsoft should be enjoined from prohibiting reverse 
engineering of its Operating Systems, Middleware, and Office 
Automation products.
    Thank you for your attention to this comment.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel F. Boyd



MTC-00016693

From: Asch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern . . .
    I just want to voice my opposition to the (current) proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft Anti.trust case.
    As the settlement stands, it will only stop Microsoft from 
continuing to abuse its power without doing anything to correct or 
punish its past actions. Microsoft has already benefited from their 
illegal acts and this settlement does nothing about that.
    While I'm sure the Court wants to reach a settlement quickly, 
that is no reason to rush into a settlement that does not adequately 
address the problems and fails to provide a decent solution. Thank 
you for your time.
    Garth Rademaker
    1320 N. Veitch St. #1532
    Arlington, VA 22201



MTC-00016694

From: Randall Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional with over 10 years of experience, I 
would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in United 
States v. Microsoft. To be frank, I view the Proposed Final Judgment 
as a gigantic loophole, ripe and ready to be abused by Microsoft. 
I'll raise one specific objection: Section III.A.2 
(``Prohibited Conduct'') prohibits Microsoft from 
retaliating against an OEM for shipping a computer with Windows and 
a non-Microsoft operating system. This section does not, however, 
prohibit Microsoft from retaliating against an OEM who ships a 
computer without a Microsoft operating system at all.
    This is exactly the kind of loophole that Microsoft has 
exploited in the past and will continue to exploit. If, for 
instance, Dell shipped a Linux-only computer, Microsoft would be 
free (under this provision) to retaliate in any way it saw fit. In 
the regular course of business this behavior is expected; from a 
predatory monopoly this behavior is illegal.
    I urge you to review this settlement with a more critical eye.
    Thank you,
    Randall Hansen



MTC-00016695

From: Ben Hines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree vehemently with the proposed MS settlement. Microsoft 
lost the case-they were declared a monopolist. Thus, it is 
time for Punishment, not further ``restrictions'' or 
``time periods'' that they have to behave ``or 
else''.
    -Ben
    http://homepage.mac.com/bhines/



MTC-00016696

From: Josh Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the 
American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Sincerely,
    Joshua Arnold



MTC-00016697

From: MICHAEL WASSIL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The case against Microsoft should not end without a remedy that 
restores competition. The current settlement will not accomplish 
this. Nine states, and the District of Columbia have asked the 
federal court to order remedies that will restore competition in the 
PC operating system market and curb Microsoft's unlawful practices. 
I support their petition and ask that the current settlement be set 
aside.
    Sincerely, Michael Wassil



MTC-00016698

From: Lounsberry, David
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26298]]

Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    David B. Lounsberry



MTC-00016699

From: Chris Nash
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a software developer. I must use Microsoft's SDKs and 
development products on a daily basis. I have watched over the past 
4 years as Microsoft furthered its monopolies within the software 
industry. I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea as it 
provides little or no protection from future monopolistic practices 
by Microsoft. Microsoft has demonstrated, in past, present and 
projected future actions, that it has little or no regard for the 
laws and penalties that make up our legal system. This proposed 
settlement defines its terms so narrowly that future products will 
easily find loopholes. Even if they don't, Microsoft still enforces 
its monopoly and strangles competition while the judicial processes 
drag on for years. Allowing this settlement to go through would 
undermine our nation's judicial system, making it apparant to the 
American people that justice is for sale.
    This cannot be allowed to happen.
    Christopher Nash
    Applications Developer
    TDC Solutions, Inc.



MTC-00016700

From: Jim Kaufman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsfot Settlement
    My current understanding of the proposed settlement is that it 
doesn't go far enough. Microsoft has done more than be a successful 
company. They have crushed competitors using secret clauses in 
contracts with their OEMs. For example, they forbid system 
manufacturers from providing alternative operating systems.
    They adopt open standards that are essential for wide use of the 
Internet, and then they co-opt them, changing them so they are no 
longer standards, but are Microsoft-specific.
    They include an Internet browser that uses proprietary 
extensions. What user is really going to spend the time to download 
an alternative browser that is 15MB in size to replace a functioning 
Internet Explorer?
    The problem is that those of use who use alternate browsers find 
that we are getting locked out of more and more Internet sites 
because the site developers chose to use a Microsoft enhancement, ie 
a non-standard function.
    The settlement as currently conceived is a bad idea.
    Jim Kaufmanmailto:[email protected]
    Linux Consultant, CCNAcell: 612-481-9778
    public key 0x6D802619fax: 952-937-9832



MTC-00016701

From: Whit Blauvelt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is insufficient remedy for the wrongs 
committed, and in progress, by the Microsoft monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Whit Blauvelt
    Transpect
    Brooklyn, NY



MTC-00016702

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The United States Department of Justice
Re: The Microsoft Settlement Greetings,
    As a software professional, it has been with a profound sense of 
relief that I have watched the U.S. Government discover what we in 
the computer business have known for years: Microsoft is an illegal 
monopoly with the power to destroy competitors at a whim. While the 
proposed settlement shows a broad understanding of the problem, I 
believe that it does not go far enough to protect consumers, and 
nowhere near far enough to ensure that developers can produce 
products which can reasonably expect to succeed on their own merits 
without encountering legal entanglements. In particular, consider 
the following points:
    Microsoft holds a VERY large number of patents, but they have 
not been compelled to reveal what patents protect the Windows 
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). Without this knowledge, 
programmers such as myself can create what we believe are original 
and innovative applications, only to have Microsoft pull out an 
obscure patent and crush our honest efforts.
    The proposed settlement requires Microsoft to release the 
specifications for its APIs, but then prohibits developers from 
using this information to give other operating systems the ability 
run Windows applications and give us all a choice!
    Microsoft uses restrictive licensing terms and intentional 
incompatibilities to reduce or eliminate the ability of developers 
to produce compatible applications for both Windows and operating 
systems which could otherwise be made compatible with the large 
number of existing Windows applications.
    The settlement with Microsoft is an historic opportunity to free 
computer users and developers around the world from the shackles 
that Microsoft has spent millions of dollars of monopoly profits 
fitting us with. Please give the settlement the power to make a 
difference, and speak to the future of computing, which could be 
very bright indeed.
    Sincerely,
    Herb DaSilva
    Senior Software Engineer
    Adaptive Optics Associates
    Cambridge, Massachusetts



MTC-00016703

From: Ted Kisner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe Microsoft should be punished to the full extent of the 
law (don't settle!) for its blatant monopolistic tactics.
    My name is Theodore Kisner, and I am an experimental physicist 
at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
    Every day I encounter problems and setbacks that are a direct 
result of the monopolistic stranglehold that Microsoft has on the 
entire computing world.
    These problems range from hardware that only comes with 
``Windows'' drivers (I use Linux for everything). To 
specialized software that only runs on Windows. (Software companies 
have no reason to make a version that runs on any other operating 
system, because Microsoft is so dominant).
    The only partial competition Microsoft has (and only in the 
server market) is from Linux. If the only way an operating system 
can compete with Windows is if it's FREE, then that's a good 
indication of a monopoly! If Microsoft is continually allowed to get 
away with Murder, the big losers will be the citizens of the this 
(supposedly) free country. Right now the only freedom I have is the 
freedom to buy more Microsoft products...
    Thank you for your time,
    -Theodore Kisner



MTC-00016704

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I do not expect that this letter I write to you will make any 
difference. I have absolutely no faith in the ability or 
determination of the courts to deal with the Microsoft Corporation. 
In countries around the world this court battle has made the U.S. 
justice

[[Page 26299]]

system a joke in professional computing and business circles. For 4 
long years courts have decided again and again that Microsoft is 
guilty and then nothing has happened. The only remedy that I can see 
being effective for dealing with Microsoft is a legally enforced 
adherence to open standards for all API's, transfer protocols, file 
formats, and any other interaction with other software. Anything 
less will not suffice and will result in another 4 years of lousy, 
insecure, buggy, and overly expensive software all supplied by the 
only company you can purchase from if you wish to do business in the 
computing world today.
    I do not expect that this letter I write to you will make any 
difference, however, because I believe that Microsoft has already 
bribed and bullied the U.S. courts into submission. It is the only 
explanation I can see that explains why no one has stopped their 
ridiculously uncompetetive business practices.
    Sincerely,
    -Joseph Rock



MTC-00016705

From: William Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please reconsider the settlement; there are many loopholes that 
allow MS to continue their predatory practices.
    One simple example: Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to 
retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a 
competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating system. and 
Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these types of practices, MS is being encouraged to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas.
    MS has destroyed many good small businesses with their 
practices. Please help American small business!
    Thank you,
    William R. Bishop



MTC-00016706

From: Chris Hamilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is weak and slanted towards Microsoft. Recent 
events have shown that even if corporations have heavy political 
influence, for the good of the US they must be kept in check. I 
don't think that Microsoft should be broken up, but I do think that 
they should pay 10s of billions (their cash assets) back to the US 
and open source Internet Explorer(IE) using a BSD(see 
www.opensource.org) like license. Removing IE from Windows now would 
mean that Microsoft can just push it back on compliant windows 
versions by letting/making the user install it with their windows 
update system.
    The only way to rectify the incompatiblity and market share 
Microsoft has caused with its browser is to make it open to all 
other operating systems to use and restrict how Microsoft can alter 
it. Forcing Microsoft to release IE and all future changes using a 
BSD style license can correct most of these problems.
    Thank you,
    Chris Hamilton-Ohio



MTC-00016707

From: Stafford A. Rau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case is a 
bad idea. It will do absolutely nothing to prevent Microsoft from 
further abusing its monopoly position in the computer software 
market, and will not prevent Microsoft from gaining and abusing a 
monopoly position in the numerous new markets that it is targeting.
    Thank you for hearing my comments on this very important case.
    Sincerely,
    Stafford A. Rau
    5506 SW 50th Ave
    Portland, OR 97221



MTC-00016708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Greetings. Let me start by stating I feel that Microsoft should 
be penalized as heavily as possible within the present antitrust 
proceedings as possible. I feel that the company has shown time and 
again a lack of respect for both the judicial branch of the american 
government, and the security/computing needs of its user base.
    I am a techinally oriented individual, but I will attempt to 
keep this email as readable as possible. Over the years I have 
watched Microsoft take defined and accepted internet standards and 
craft them to their own ends, to the extent that similar 
applications using the standard are unable to communicate with the 
Microsoft application. While this in and of itself is not per se 
bad, it is when they then begin introducing new applications with 
this problem and start to push entire product lines out, making it 
impossible for third party vendors to tie their applications into 
the given application. This is what creates their monopoly. I dont 
think that they should be forced to stop creating their software, or 
even making use of thier closed proprietary protocols and standards, 
but they should be forced to open communications which define a 
standard interface to those applications.
    I see that the present agreement does call for this, but in such 
a narrow scope as to be irrelevant. With a few minor changes to the 
way they do things, and the present settlement does nothing to 
constrain their disrespectful attitude. If anything I believe that 
the settlement should be unnecessarily broad as opposed to uselessly 
narrow.
    I mean no disrespect to the Justice Department. The individuals 
within your orginization do and know things in regards to the laws 
which I will never have the time to inclination to understand. But 
by the same note, there are many individuals in this country and 
abroad, which know about computers and network communications which 
the Justice Department individuals have neither the inclination or 
time to learn about. It is these individuals the Justice Dept. 
should listen to.
    It is very easy for a multi billion dollar corporation to 
``persuade'' people and corporations to state in 
microsoft's favor. While each email like my own is a statement from 
the peoples of the Tech/IT industry, which no deeper political 
motivation than simply requesting a fair and even judgement, with 
appropriate penalties for unacceptable behavior in our industry. We 
work day in and day out with software produced from this software 
giant, and must constantly deal with its short commings. If this 
settlement could be more than a simple slap on the wrist, and a 
truely enforceable strict judgement, then the software industry and 
the technical industry in general could and more than likely would 
see a huge turnaround and improvement. Imagine if Microsoft were 
forced to have its code reviewed prior to releaseing it out to its 
customer base. Instead of getting a new and improved version 
``Windows '' with 
numerous security issues to be found and exploited by malicious 
users, you could have the same version a few weeks/months later with 
possibly more robust and secure features. You then wouldnt have ISPs 
going bankrupt due to Distributed denial of Service attacks by 
malicious user who spent 30-45 minutes looking for something 
fun to do.  (Granted the ISP 
in question was located abroad, but the fact remains that the ISP 
was shut down, and unable to continue business. I would shudder to 
see this happen within the US itself, where the economy is hurting 
as bad as it is right now.)
    I am aware that Microsoft has not been found guilty of being a 
monopoly, and while I do not agree with that fact, no software 
comapny should be able to basically flip the justice dept. the 
proverbial bird and be able to just shrug it off. This is probably a 
major turning point within the tech industry, and should be treated 
with the utmost scrutiny. If we allow them to simply stomp on the 
ruling now, drag their feet with complying with the terms for a 
given period, and pick up at full swing at the far end, then what 
was the point in the first place of raising the issue?
    Please do not allow money to overrule justice in this case.
    Sincerly,
    Eric Concepcion
    Eric M. Concepcion
    Adelphia IPDCOPS (Unix Dept.)
    http://www.adelphia.net
    Email: [email protected]
    Phone: (814) 274-1399
    A+ Certified Technician
    Sun Certified Solaris 2.6 System Admin



MTC-00016709

From: Larry Brinley

[[Page 26300]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies/Gents:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft in this current anti-
trust case is, to be brief, aggriegiously inadequate. These 
inadequacies include, but are not limited to the following:
    1. The definintions of ``technical'' terms, such as 
Application Programming Interface (API), Microsoft Middleware, 
Windows, et. al., are so narrowly targeted that they permit 
Microsoft's circumvention of the spirit of the proposed settlement 
at Microsoft's sole discretion. Microsoft must not be allowed to 
determine what does and does not fall within the scope of the 
settlement. The continued anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft 
after the watered-down 1994 Consent Decree is evidence of this fact 
(see 2. below).
    2. The proposed settlement does not address current anti-
competitve practices the Microsoft (MS) employs, let alone future 
practices that they may devise. For example, the enterprise license 
agreement that MS currently uses for its MS Office applications and 
operating systems bases pricing for the licenses on the number of 
computers that could run an MS operating system, rather than the 
number that actually do run an MS operating system. This practice 
when used against Own Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) was 
specifically prohibited by the 1994 Consent Decree. This pattern of 
behavior clearly indicates that MS will abide only by the letter of 
the settlement, while continuing its efforts to quash free 
competition in contravention of the spirit of the settlement.
    3. The question of enforcement of the proposed settlement is 
completely open-ended. Although the settlement calls for the 
creation of a ``Technical Committee'' with investigative 
powers, I see no provision for enforcement actions of any kind that 
the ``Technical Committee'' may take. Remember, Microsoft 
is guilty of violation of the Tunney Act already as a matter of law. 
They've already had benefit of due process and have lost the right 
to the presumption of innocence in this matter. The consumer should 
not have to wait for independent findings of fact from the courts to 
address ongoing misconduct. When MS chooses to violate the 
settlement-and, as history indicates, they certainly WILL 
choose to do so-the ``Technical Committee'' should 
be able to impose severe and immediate fines or other penalties with 
impunity. Place the fines in escrow and let them accrue interest 
until such time as Microsoft can substantiate its innocence to a 
court of law. Further, all costs of enforcement should be born by 
Microsoft. They broke the law; we should not have to pay a cent to 
keep them honest in the future.
    That's my $.02. Please put some teeth in the settlement this 
time. Of course, you could always wait for the next heinous anti-
competitive act from Microsoft. My bet is with the way the .NET 
innitiative is shaping up, none of us will have to wait long.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence M. Brinley
    SOHO Solutions, Inc.



MTC-00016710

From: Jeremiah Jahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No to Microsoft
    I do not believe that the Microsoft Settlement is in the best 
interest of the citizens of the United States. The settlement is 
unnecessary, the findings of fact which were upheld support that 
Microsoft is a monopoly. Why then is a settlement necessary? I find 
it more and more difficult every day to stand behind the decisions 
of my country, because of the influence of corporations. Don't let 
this be another nail in the coffin of democracy.
    A corporation is not a citizen. Its decisions do not reflect the 
needs of the American. They are based on the declared desire to 
maximize profits. Corporations do not represent citizens. Only a 
citizen can represent his or her self. Corporations do not reflect 
the interests of citizens. A citizen declares his interests by 
casting his or her single vote. If a citizen stands to lose money 
because of harm done to Microsoft, then he or she needs to call his 
or representative or send and email to you. It is not a 
corporation's right to do that for them.
    I don't know what the perfect solution to all of this is. I do 
have a few suggestions though. I believe that Microsoft should be 
forced to open and keep open all of its file formats and protocols, 
both internal and external, so that their services and files can be 
used by competing software. This would give people a huge choice and 
not affect Microsoft adversely. Second, distribution of Microsoft's 
software should not be considered part of a solution, but only 
furthering the problem by expanding their monopoly. Finally, if a 
fine is issued then it should be substantial enough to put them on a 
level playing field with their competitors.
    Jeremiah E. Jahn
    3624 Hwy 51
    Makanda, IL 62958
    Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because 
it is a merger of State and corporate power. -Benito Mussolini



MTC-00016711

From: Daniel W. Headington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft
    Good Day. I do not have time to read or understand all the legal 
language in the files, but from what I understand and have been told 
about the case there will be no easy answer. The biggest question I 
have is what happen to the American Dream of being able to create 
something and have the sole rights to that product for a number of 
years if they wish. Microsoft has done some things wrong like making 
hardware companies only offer there product on there machines. I 
think that has been conceded. The part I don't like is the thought 
of tearing apart the most advanced and aggressive software company 
in the world. We have kids and ``sick'' individuals out 
there trying to tap into different systems and destroy or steal 
peoples information. We need to keep a company like Microsoft 
running at peak performance to help seal up these loopholes. I as a 
consumer do not mind paying for a superior product. The old saying 
usually holds true, ``you get what you pay for''. When I 
forget that I usually find out the hard way. In the case of 
Microsoft they are offering a superior product for a pretty pricey 
fee when bought individually. Microsoft has so many different areas 
that it is hard to point them all out. The main areas that I use is 
the operating system and office software. I have used the 
competition for the office software and they are still trying to 
catch up and are cheaper, but personally I would spend the money for 
the better product.
    My only solution to offer is to fine them for their faults like 
the monopoly with the hardware manufacturers and monitor them so it 
will not happen again in the future. For the other areas of software 
like the internet software, if a company can offer it for free how 
is that bad for consumers. If you look at any other industry there 
are always options that companies offer for free to intice people to 
use their product. My only thing would be to set pricing controls on 
Microsoft explaining that if they offer it now for nothing and the 
competition does fall out then the software still will remain the 
same and only able to increase by the standard of inflation for that 
time period.
    I will not feel sorry for the AOL of the world because you look 
how they got what they have and they did not invent or master their 
product line, they bought their way into the businesses. They have a 
monopoly on the cable industry along with there so called 
competitors but no one has pushed the envelope there. YOU ALSO HAVE 
TO REMEMBER THAT THE COMPUTER AND INTERNET ARE OPTIONS TO THE 
CONSUMER AND THE INTERNET WAS INTENDED TO BE FREE, BUT TAKE A 
SERIOUS LOOK AT WHO REALLY IS TRYING TO CASH IN ON THE TECHNOLOGY 
WAVE. MICROSOFT WAS A STANDARD LONG BEFORE THIS CRAZE STARTED. AOL 
IS STILL TRYING TO BUY OR LOBBY THERE WAY IN.
    Daniel W. Headington
    First National Bank of Platteville
    3525 Percival Street
    Hazel Green, WI 53811
    (608) 854-2090



MTC-00016712

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I strongly believe ANY settlement with Micro$oft is a bad idea, 
for the future of the computing environment-and for personal 
liberty.
    Christopher Perkins
    Maine Linux Users Group
    Disabled Vietnam Combat Veteran



MTC-00016713

From: Matthew Bogosian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to voice my disapproval of the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. I would like to refer to Dan Kegel's comments as 
reflective

[[Page 26301]]

of my own views: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    The proposed settlement does not go nearly far enough to prevent 
Microsoft from using their monopolistic position to maliciously and 
without merit destroy competitive products/companies/industries/etc.
    Thank you for your time.
    Matthew T. Bogosian
    [email protected] mail.
    http://www.bogosian.net/ï¿½7Ematt/
    Key fingerprint = b5aa6447 e4c2942c 5f06f6ed 249247f3 2417bf82
    Please send encrypted
    PGP Public Key available upon request.
    Walk softly and carry a megawatt laser.



MTC-00016714

From: maczilla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    This email is being written in accordance of the Tunney Act. I 
am a 35 year-old US citizen residing in Northern Virginia. I have 
been involved in the computing field since 1980.
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. I 
also feel that the current settlement would end up giving Microsoft 
yet another monopoly; this time over the computing environment used 
by public school systems.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous and continuing actions. There are no provisions 
that correct, redress or punish their previous abuses. They only 
prohibit the future repetition of a few specific abuses. This, in my 
opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a person or 
organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts 
and then receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that 
they cannot commit some of those acts again, they have still 
benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the 
victims of their abuses and not for the American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded. I 
find many areas of the settlement highly disturbing:
    1. It does not take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    2. It does not take into account intentional incompatibilities 
with well-known APIs (eg, kerebos authentication).
    3. The settlement too narrowly defines what an API is, de-
fanging the portion of the settlement that supposedly makes 
Microsoft publish it's APIs.
    4. The settlement too narrowly defines what the Windows OS is. 
Various versions of XP, CE/Pocket PC and even the Xbox are not 
covered by the settlement's definition. It is likely that Microsoft 
would work it's way around the definition in ALL future operating 
systems.
    5. The settlement does not force Microsoft to open the file 
formats used by Office software (such as Word, Excel, etc).
    6. The settlement does not go into prevention of future abuse 
via services, such as .Net.
    7. My largest concern with the settlement is that, through 
noble-sounding intentions, it effectively gives Microsoft total 
control over the education market (one of the few they do no 
dominate at this time).
    In my opinion, what any settlement needs to do is:
    1. Force Microsoft to open all APIs, with a clear and broad-
reaching definition of what is an API.
    2. Force Microsoft to stop any ``extend and 
extinguish'' extensions to well-known standards.
    3. Have the settlement apply to any and all Microsoft products 
and services.
    4. Force Microsoft to open any and all file formats for current 
and future products.
    5. Force Microsoft to open and document any and all interfaces 
to present and future service-type offerings (such as .Net, 
PassPort, MSN Messenger).
    6. Force Microsoft to publish all these APIs, formats, 
interfaces, et al with a NON-RESTRICTIVE license. Many of 
Microsoft's current licenses forbid the use of GPL'd libraries, 
code, etc. These licensing terms must be stopped.
    In conclusion; I feel that the settlement, as written, will do 
nothing to stop Microsoft from continuing the practices that this 
suit was instigated by and in many ways would have the opposite 
effect. The settlement allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the emergence of 
competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is therefore not 
in the public interest. It should not be adopted in the current 
form.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Barger
    Systems Administrator/Engineer
    Maczilla Heavy Industries
    Mason's Neck Virginia



MTC-00016715

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The proposed settlement does little to correct Microsoft's previous 
actions. There are no provisions that correct or redress their 
previous abuses. They only seek to provide vague assurances against 
future repetition of those abuses.
    Microsoft has continued to flout previous consent decrees and 
refuses to recognize the court's findings of fact.
    Sincerely,
    -Eric Jones
    Eric Jones Sr. Systems and Applications Programmer
    Boston University
    Office of Information Technology
    Scientific Computing & Visualization
    [email protected]
    Office: (617) 358-0030
    FAX: (617) 353-6260



MTC-00016716

From: Matthew Davidson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) as currently worded is 
insufficient, and contains too many loopholes to adequately prevent 
Microsoft from abusing its monopoly position. It contains misleading 
and narrow definitions, does not address anticompetitive license 
schemes currently used by Microsoft, and fails to fully prevent 
Microsoft from punishing OEM's.
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered, and may not even include the next Windows version. 
Or how about this for a Catch-22? The PFJ requires Microsoft to 
release API documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible 
middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs to 
demonstrate that their middleware is compatible. It also requires 
Microsoft to release API documentation-but prohibits 
competitors from using this documentation to help make their 
operating systems compatible with Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows, and to prevent Windows 
apps from running on other Operating Systems. Furtermore, the PFJ 
allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal 
Computers containing a competing Operating System but no Microsoft 
operating system. It also allows Microsoft to discriminate against 
small OEMs-including regional `white box' OEMs 
which are historically the most willing to install competing 
operating systems-who ship competing software.
    Considering these problems, the Proposed Final Judegement as it 
currently stands is clearly not in the general interest. It should 
not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Davidson



MTC-00016717

From: Jeff Benjamin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    RE: The relief is not significant.
    I have been a software developer for 11+ years, and I have 
watched since 1993 as the Justice Department did its probe that 
culminated in a proposed final judgmeent. This judgment finds that 
Microsoft did commit wrongdoings, and states that it will provide 
prompt, certain and effective remedy

[[Page 26302]]

for their violations. I personally have benefitted greatly by 
selling services on top of Microsoft products, so it is with much 
grace that I state: I do not believe for a second that the relief 
provided by this judgment is certain or effective, simply because it 
is outdated.
    Microsoft will comply with the relief without much pain. They 
are so far down the technology highway that a majority of the relief 
points are insignificant, or no punishment at all for their 
wrongdoings. In fact, the worst punishment mentioned are the points 
that require Microsoft to disclose communications protocols and 
technical interfaces. Even these points are easily circumvented by 
``creative packaging'', especially with Microsoft's new 
``software as a service'' concept. The only interfaces 
they will be disclosing is the HTTP or SOAP protocols, as that is 
sufficient to invoke a service residing on Microsoft servers. If 
they were monopolizing and creating lock-in scenarios before, just 
watch them this next decade.
    I would urge the court to reconsider the punishment in this case 
and weigh it against the damage Microsoft has done in the last 
decade. Many companies have fallen due to their unethical practices, 
and I trust that you will find the punishment is not on par with the 
violations. The punishment is based on old technology, and at 
current technology levels the punishment is worth far less in 
penalty value than it was when the wrongdoings were committed.
    I would also add that, in my opinion, Microsoft treats its 
products as ``products'' in the marketplace, but treats 
them as ``intellectual property'' or 
``services'' in the legal arena. Perhaps a review of this 
treatment from a product law perspective would be refreshing. I for 
one believe it would solve the problem of technology's pace reducing 
the penalty value of any punishment that is prescribed, but then 
again, I'm not a lawyer.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Benjamin, Sr. Technical Architect
    Ivertex Internet Solutions, Inc.
    phone: 602-717-1890
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00016718

From: Russ Poldrack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am writing under the auspices of the Tunney Act in opposition 
to the proposed settlement of the US vs. Microsoft case. My vantange 
point is as a biomedical researcher who has for years been a user of 
Apple Macintosh computer systems, and more recently as a user of 
Linux and other open-source software. I am strongly opposed to the 
features of the proposed settlement that would allow Microsoft to 
continue to withhold crucial technical information. This technical 
information (such as file formats and API's) is important to allow 
the unfettered development of third-party software that can 
interoperate with Microsoft products, which is essential for the 
survival of non-Microsoft products given the predominance of 
Microsoft in the marketplace. I am also very worried that the lack 
of significant penalties to Microsoft for their past anticompetitive 
practices. I have seen these practices in action firsthand as both 
an Apple users and more recently as a Linux user, and I can 
personally attest to the degree to which they have handicapped these 
competitive operating systems. I hope that a revised settlement will 
address these important issues.
    Sincerely,
    Russell A. Poldrack, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of Radiology, 
Harvard Medical School
    MGH-NMR Center
    Building 149, 13th St.
    Charlestown, MA 02129
    Phone: 617-726-4060
    FAX: 617-726-7422
    Email: [email protected]
    Web Page: http://www.poldracklab.org 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016719

From: Kurt Sellner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to any judgment in United States v. Microsoft that 
allows Microsoft to restrict the ability for computer resellers to 
include any operating system they choose with any computer they 
sell, including the option to sell a computer without an OS 
installed. The price paid for the installation of Windows (or any 
operating system) should be known to the computer purchaser and be 
able to have the price paid refunded if the installed OS is not used 
or wanted.
    Microsoft currently restricts what computer makers may install 
on their systems before shipping them to the customer. This prevents 
the computer makers from differentiating their computers from the 
competition's, restricting them from including any value added 
software, offering dual boot systems, or removing any undesired 
Microsoft software. Any judgment should address this fact.
    Kurt Sellner



MTC-00016720

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is getting off way to easy. They destroyed competition 
in the internet browser and e-mail client markets. Now they are 
going after the streaming media and music software markets, and web 
publishing. Don't let them add any new ``features'' that 
crush competition.
    thx-Stratton Penberthy



MTC-00016721

From: Alfred Hartzler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case is VERY bad because it permits Microsoft to continue 
using its monopoly power to prevent users like me from getting 
efficient and secure computer application software. James Hartzler 
1250 S. Washington St. #203 Alexandria, VA 22314



MTC-00016722

From: Armstrong, Jason
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Armstrong
    Network Systems Engineer
    Technica Corporation
    Cell: 703-868-2676
    [email protected]
    Global Crossing
    Desk: 602-357-6248
    [email protected]



MTC-00016723

From: A.J. Tolland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. This settlement does not do enough to force 
Microsoft to cease its anticompetitive behavior.
    sincerely,
    A.J. Tolland
    911 E. 56th St. #3
    Chicago, IL 60637



MTC-00016724

From: joel grimes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my reservations about the proposed settlement. 
I am firmly convinced that Microsoft have trampled on my rights and 
the rights of all consumers and they have no intention to change.

[[Page 26303]]

    The prosposed settlement does not punish Microsoft for the 
considerable wrongs they have committed, and does not do enough to 
prevent them from similar behaviors in the future. Microsoft has 
stifled competition. To redress this, the settlement must 
proactively foster competition. It must tip the scales farther away 
from Microsoft's favor. In its current form the settlement, combined 
with the reality of Microsoft's monopoly position, is so ineffective 
that the needle barely budges.
    My primary objection is that Microsoft is not punished. It is 
only given weak behavior restrictions, and only for a very short 
period of time. Microsoft should be fined very heavily. The unlawful 
gains they have made at the expense of consumers should be 
confiscated. They should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their 
illegal activities. Also, Microsoft should not be permitted to 
select the compliance officer or any member of the technical 
committee.
    Where is the punishment? Where is the penalty for non-
compliance? Microsoft quite happily found ways to continue their 
abusive behavior after their last settlement so it is a virtual 
certainty that they will do so again. The only penalty stated in the 
agreement is a possible 2 year extention of the settlement! This is 
maddeningly innefectual. The settlement should specify severe 
punishment for any infraction. Make no mistake, Microsoft would be 
very pleased with this settlement. It leaves them most of their 
power and all of their money.
    Thank you for your time.
    Joel Edward Grimes



MTC-00016725

From: Mase Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I 
feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software or the Internet 
browser market and would like to see a much stronger penalty 
imposed. The proposed settlement does not sufficiently relieve 
Microsoft of the ability to leverage hardware and computer 
manufacturers unfairly against competing products, nor does it 
adequately open the Windows API to programmers. Until a reasonable 
competitive market place has been achieved the government has not 
done justice to its constituents.
    Mason Warner
    Foster City, CA 94404



MTC-00016726

From: Tom Witmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments about the Microsoft settlement:
    The proposed settlement does not appear to prevent any of the 
discovered problems from being prevented in the future. Also, the 
fuzzy definitions of so many terms render it essentially 
meaningless. Almost every restriction on Microsoft has an 
``out'' that lets Microsoft evade the terms by simply 
claiming they needed to do whatever they wanted to do out of 
``security''.
    As anyone who is familiar with Microsoft's handling of viruses 
alone over the last few years, Microsoft does not, and never has, 
cared about security of the consumer.
    Further, as one who's been in many disputes over the meaning of 
well-written and clear software requirements, it's obvious that this 
poorly worded one will never render satisfaction to either side.
    Worst of all, the enforcement provisions are essentially 
meaningless. Microsoft has repeatedly failed to govern its own 
behavior in the past. What has changed that provides an impression 
that Microsoft is suddenly capable of doing this ethically?
    -Tom Witmer
    Software Developer, Evolving Systems, Inc.
    Englewood, Colorado



MTC-00016727

From: Mark Merten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice,
    I feel it is necessary to voice my strong opposition to the 
Proposed Final Judgement in the United Status vs.. Microsoft Anti-
trust case. I have spent some time reading the judgment and reading 
some opinions on the judgment. Many issues are debated, but the 
issue I find most concerning is the lack of enforcement setup in the 
Proposed Final Judgement. I was unable to find any particular 
methods of enforcement or how an organization is going to verify 
that Microsoft is following all the rules setup by the Proposed 
Final Judgment.
    I have worked in the computer industry for 10 years. My first 
job was doing phone support for a value add reseller, that sold 
Microsoft products. Over the course of my employment I had 
opportunity to communicate with several Microsoft support engineers. 
I heard one story that is a good example of Microsoft's blatant 
misuse of power. A support engineer once boasted to me how Microsoft 
specifically, incorrectly documenting windows 3.1 memory usage, such 
that 3rd party vendor products would crash windows 3.1 while 
attempting to use certain memory locations. Microsoft would document 
such areas available, and still use the memory locations, thus 
causing 3rd party vendors to struggle to release stable software for 
windows 3.1.
    Overall, I feel the Proposed Final Judgment is far to 
inadequate, and stronger measures need to be taken to correct the 
unfair practices Microsoft has been implementing over the years. 
Thank you for your time. I hope the courts ruling will be fair and 
just.
    Mark Merten



MTC-00016728

From: Partha Narasimhan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement is full of loopholes that give 
Microsoft enough room to continue operating the way they have been 
all these years. Except it will now give them the aura of 
`legal legitimacy'. Anyone that understands Microsoft's 
practices, and its effect on the software/computer industry, knows 
that this is more harmful for the entire industry. Given that the 
nation's economy is increasingly dependent on the tech industry, 
this has the potential to impact our economy adversely.
    I request the DOJ to re-negotiate the terms of the settlement 
with terms that will truly help the tech industry and the economy.
    Thanks,
    Partha Narasimhan



MTC-00016729

From: System Administrator
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement was improperly crafted 
and has several large issues either handled poorly or not at all. 
Since most of these issues have been commented on by other people. I 
will not list them here. However sites such as http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html do a good job of listing the major issues. I 
believe this settlement to be totally unacceptable and is just lip 
service to addressing the improper conduct and monopoly Microsoft 
carries on. Another settlement needs to be drafted, addressing the 
shortcomings of this settlement and other facets of this case that 
were not addressed.
    Sincerely,
    Terry Melton
    Terry Melton
    Junior Network Administrator
    Engineering Information
    Elsevier Science
    1 Castle Point Terrace
    Hoboken, NJ 07030
    Telephone: (800) 221-1044 x680
    Mobile: (917) 443-0123
    [email protected]



MTC-00016730

From: Marc Levine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to protest about the proposed Microsoft settlement. 
It is toothless and ill-conceived, apparently written by Microsoft 
lawyers, and does little to punish Microsoft for past illegal 
behavior or proscribe future illegal behavior. Indeed, Microsoft is 
proceeding to do business as they always have, clearly showing no 
remorse or desire to change its ways. If this settlement is 
approved, Microsoft will continue to pursue its illegal monopoly, 
this time with the court's blessing!
    Sincerely,
    Marc Levine
    Systems Analyst-Programmer
    Mendocino County



MTC-00016731

From: American Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26304]]

    The proposed settlement is a bad idea for the entire human race.
    The more power we give to microsoft, the less power we have for 
ourselves. Please, split the company into 3 separate entities as the 
previous judge requested. This will be the only way we can stall 
Microsoft's takeover of the world.
    If we don't take action now, we'll settle for nothing later.
    Joseph Alek Piasecki
    Systems Administrator/GM-Buypower Manager
    Danville Holdings, Inc
    dba American Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac
    Phone: (888) 417-6484
    e-mail: [email protected]
    http://www.buyamericancars.com



MTC-00016732

From: marcus cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
of the Microsoft antitrust trial.
    It fails to redress the harm the company has inflicted on the 
software market as a result of leveraging its monopoly position as 
demonstrated in the Findings of Fact.
    One of the most significant results of this illegal activity is 
`vendor lock-in'. Consumers have become tied to Microsoft 
products because of the lack of alternatives. In order to remedy 
this situation, I believe that the best solution is to force 
Microsoft to publish is document formats and programming interfaces, 
and make these available to the public and competitors 6 months 
before any proposed changes.
    Importantly, the public and competitors must be allowed use of 
copyrighted and patented interfaces and formats for the purpose of 
interoperability. This single step would leave Microsoft free to 
innovate while allowing competition from other software vendors 
based on the merits of the product, rather than any historical 
market share earned through illegal means.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake.
    Sincerely,
    Marcus Cole



MTC-00016733

From: Werckmeister, Robert
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in opposition to the terms of the settlement with 
Microsoft.
    Robert Werckmeister



MTC-00016734

From: Jonathan B. Anglin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan B. Anglin



MTC-00016735

From: Chip Sockwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This letter is addressed to the District Court Judge handling 
the Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The matter of the Microsoft settlement now before your court is 
something that concerns me deeply. I grew up in a time of emerging 
computer and technology giants. I followed technology like my peers 
followed comic books. To me technology had the same great story 
line: good vs. evil, brainpower vs. brute force, innovation vs. 
stagnation. Superheroes and villains blinked in and out of existence 
always to be knocked aside by the next greatest advancement. Reading 
about these adventures carved my definition of American spirit. With 
the backdrop of the American free market the spirit of these heroes 
unprecedented creativity, innovation and efficiency helped opened a 
new era in history. I still struggle to understand the infinite 
complexities that took place only a decade ago and I only hope to 
keep a finger on the countless decisions and maneuvers that take 
place in todays technology market.
    It is an appeal to your American spirit that I write this letter 
today. From my own experience I have seen a troublesome decline in 
American spirit and optimism due directly to the Microsoft case and 
its premise. Before the events in the Microsoft trial unfolded I had 
been completing my college degree in Information Systems. Looking 
back at the spirit of my classmates I noticed a palpable and 
enthusiastic I'm going to show everyone and make a million attitude. 
This American spirit and enthusiasm for technology bleed through 
into most every topic the class and the teachers discussed. The 
number of technology classes could not meet the demand of philomaths 
lining up at the business schools doors. That is until the courts 
decided to entertain the pleas of Microsofts fallen competitors. By 
the time the verdict had been read most students knew that the 
situation would not blow over by graduation.
    Technology became the topic of failure and a seat in a 
technology class was no longer prized possession. Many students were 
depressed by the subsequent downturn in the economy, but some were 
left questioning the fundamentals that gave Americans their 
optimistic spirit: the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. The Microsoft case was and is in direct violation to the 
latter two. The DOJ has sent a clear message: Microsoft, you have 
had enough liberty and happiness. Microsoft exhibited the same 
competitive behavior that we were studying in textbooks, yet their 
troubles seem to stem from one un-American axiom. If you become 
moderately successful, your business practices will be labeled as 
competitive; if you become very successful, your practices will 
become the subject of anti-competitive scrutiny and jealousy.
    The anti-trust laws are not being applied fairly in this case 
and their very nature prevents them from ever being applied 
objectively. Has it come to pass that we now define the legality 
business practices by the success of the producer? Will the courts 
now be a competitive tool for the incompetent? Leaving the puerile 
comments and verdict of Judge Jackson aside, justice in America 
cannot be served until every business knows that it is free to 
produce and compete. The weakness of DOJs case has only proven that 
this freedom is subject to whim and jealousy. The American spirit 
will not be restored until this case removes the limits on liberty 
and the pursuit of happiness.
    Sincerely,
    Chip Sockwell (Devoted Microsoft user-until the next 
greatest thing comes along)
    17 Mohawk CT
    Cromwell, CT 06416
    (860) 635-4061



MTC-00016736

From: Simpson, Mike
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to express my displeasure with the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement proposal. I feel that the single biggest issues 
affecting competition are the facts that 1) Microsoft has an 
effective monopoly of the ``office productivity suite'' 
class of applications, and 2) they make it very difficult for other 
vendors to interoperate with their product (Microsoft Office). 
Potential new vendors must support the Office document formats 
because they are the de facto standard, but they are undocumented, 
and thus it is almost impossible for any potential new vendors to 
support them well. As a result, the consumer has no choice but to 
buy Office, and because it only runs on Windows, he has no choice in 
operating systems either.

[[Page 26305]]

    I feel that any effective settlement must include the following 
conditions: 1) Microsoft must release full documentation for the 
existing Office file formats; 2) Microsoft must be prohibited from 
introducing changes to these formats without releasing full 
documentation of the changes; 3) Microsoft must be release said 
documentation in advance of their actual support for the changes, to 
prevent other vendors from having to play catch-up. 4) Microsoft 
must participate in the development of new, open document formats, 
preferably based on XML and governed by an independent standards 
body.
    The effect of these conditions would be to allow other vendors 
to develop a product competitive to Microsoft Office for the first 
time in years. This in turn would open the door to competition in 
many other areas.
    Mike Simpson
    Typed with the Dvorak keyboard layout: http://www.mwbrooks.com/
dvorak/



MTC-00016737

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00016738

From: Garrick James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
23 January 2002
Garrick James
6909 Weeding Place NE #A202
Seattle, WA 98115
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Hesse:
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with an analysis provided by Mr. Dan 
Kegel (available on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html).
    ï¿½ The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-
compatible competing operating systems
    ï¿½ Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to 
Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even 
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    ï¿½ The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow 
Definitions and Provisions
    ï¿½ The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its 
secret APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered.
    ï¿½ The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace 
Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with 
a competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    ï¿½ The PFJ supposedly applies to 
``Windows'', but it defines that term so narrowly that it 
doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, 
or the X-Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and 
are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    ï¿½ The PFJ fails to require advance notice of 
technical requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing 
middleware simply by changing the requirements shortly before the 
deadline, and not informing ISVs.
    ï¿½ The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible 
middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs to 
demonstrate that their middleware is compatible.
    ï¿½ The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    ï¿½ The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release 
documentation about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    ï¿½ The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which 
software patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-
compatible operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are 
they not infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare 
away potential users.
    ï¿½ The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License 
Terms currently used by Microsoft
    ï¿½ Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing 
terms to keep Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    ï¿½ Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing 
terms to keep Windows apps from running on competing operating 
systems.
    ï¿½ Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by 
large companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the 
number of computers which could run a Microsoft operating 
system-even for computers running competing operating systems 
such as Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 
1994 consent decree.)
    ï¿½ The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft
    ï¿½ Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    ï¿½ The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any 
OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against 
small OEMs-including regional `white box' OEMs 
which are historically the most willing to install competing 
operating systems-who ship competing software.
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on 
Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft 
Office or Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas.
    ï¿½ The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an 
effective enforcement mechanism.
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by Mr. Kegel, namely 
that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the 
emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is 
therefore not in the public interest. It should not be adopted 
without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Garrick James



MTC-00016739

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 23, 2002
    Under the Tunney Act, I write to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I will begin by stating my agreement with the 
problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), which thoroughly covers a 
variety of substantial weaknesses in this proposed settlement that 
would render it largely ineffective for providing remedies to the 
Microsoft Corporation's illegal anti-competitive practices.
    I urge the Department of Justice to consider the technical 
issues discussed widely in the analysis of Mr. Kegel and others. The 
proponents and creators of alternative operating systems such as 
Linux and Windows software compatibility applications such as WINE 
have a unique perspective to understand the issues of technical 
barriers that can be exploited by the Microsoft corporation to 
continue its illegal practices while obeying the technical demands 
of the proposed settlement.
    Finally, I join Mr. Kegel in many others in urging the 
Department of Justice to more clearly delineate the mechanisms and 
processes for enforcing this agreement. The Microsoft Corporation 
has repeatedly demonstrated a notorious disregard and disrespect for 
the law, and there is every reason to believe that it will take 
advantage of any opportunity to engage in behaviors that will erode 
the intent of this judgement.
    Without appropriately defined oversights, authorities to lead 
and oversee remedies for failure to comply, and the insurance of 
penalties sufficient to force compliance, it is unlikely that the 
proposed settlement will result in any true creation of greater 
competitive environments in the markets currently dominated by the 
Microsoft Corporation's illegal monopolistic business practices.
    Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan M. Hamlow
    2555 Washington St. NE #2
    Minneapolis, MN 55418

[[Page 26306]]



MTC-00016740

From: Doug Weathers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a terrible idea.
    Doug Weathers,
    Network Administrator
    St. Charles Medical Center



MTC-00016741

From: Andrew B. Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. There are many problems with the proposed 
settlement, namely: The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-
compatible competing operating systems:
    - Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.

The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions:

    - The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    - The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    - The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product, but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The 
PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with 
competing middleware.
    - The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
    - The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    - The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    - The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    - The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    - The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently used 
by Microsoft:

    - Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    - Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    - Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities Historically 
Used by Microsoft:

    - Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs:

    - The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    - The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    - The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    - The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    I believe that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew B. Peterson
    Andrew B. Peterson, M.A., M.S., President
    Vital Net Ventures Corporation
    Internet Site Design and Hosting
    email: [email protected]: VNVAndy
    web site: http://www.vitalnet.com/
    phone: 561-393-1297
    toll-free: 1-888-458-4825
    toll-free fax: 1-888-866-4721
    mobile: 561-302-1297



MTC-00016742

From: Pavlo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea.
    Pavlo Rudakevych
    Pismo Beach, CA.



MTC-00016743

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If Micorsoft is guilty, they should be punished. No company 
should be punished for being successful, but if that company became 
successful by breaking the law then they should be punished, not for 
their success but for their crime.
    I was a mac user that had to become a windows user due to its 
ever growing dominance in the world. Please dole out a fair 
punishment
    Mark Martin
    Experience Designer
    Element K
    ``e-Learning with a human touch''
    www.elementk.com
    585-240-7686



MTC-00016744

From: Wilson, Eric
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir / Madam;
    I simply wish to voice my opinion with regard to the Microsoft 
anti-trust suit. Clearly Microsoft have already been found guilty. 
The only thing that remains is restitution, and divergence from 
previous business tactics.
    Allowing Microsoft to flood the educational markets with free 
rein is clearly a step in the wrong direction. Judgments should be 
in the form of penalty not reward. This must include the assurance 
that no further anti-trust activity can continue.
    Regards;
    Eric Wilson
    IBM CATE AIX / SP Systems Administration
    Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
    One Busch Place
    1CC-8
    St. Louis, MO
    Voice: 314.589.7601
    Cell: 314.486.8443
    Facsimile 314.632.6901
    email: [email protected]
    pager: [email protected]



MTC-00016745

From: Marc Rassbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not see how the proposed settlement goes ANY way to redress 
the past monopolistic actions of Microsoft.
    Nor does it stop them in the future.
    Late 1980's. I could not buy a machine w/o MS-DOS (and later 
windows) I ran Xenix 286 and Xenix 386, and did not need thier 
product, yet was forced to buy it.
    Last year I needed a laptop. I could not buy a new laptop unless 
I *ALSO* paid for some form of windows. That laptop boots FreeBSD, 
and *I* have never booted Windows on it.
    As a consultant, I do not need, nor want to be forced to buy 
their products just so I can have hardware to run FreeBSD. Yet, that 
is exaclty what is happening. And has been happening for years. 
Microsoft has used the dominance of DOS/Windows to now levelrage the 
browser market. Next up is they

[[Page 26307]]

will use this dominance to leverage payments out of consumers to 
view content. The windows media player being built into DVD drives 
is an example. The use of the DMCA to prevent decryption of the 
specs to thier re-implementation of kerberos (causing breakage with 
the standard) is another example of ``business as usual'' 
for Microsoft. I know that if *I* created false evidence in court, I 
would have be behind bars right now. Judges do not like people lying 
under oath. Yet, the end result for Microsoft is remains another day 
in monopoly paradise for Microsoft, with the governments help.
    Part of the rhetoric of 0 /bin/ladin is that the US government 
backs its corporations. The proposed settlement is more business as 
usual where the US government helps to back corporations. Show some 
backbone. Do your job. Work to stop the illegal microsoft monopoly.
    Linux is for people who hate Microsoft.
    FreeBSD is for people who love UNIX.
    Windows: ``Where do want to go today?''
    Linux: ``Where do you want to go tomorrow?''
    BSD: ``Hey, are you guys coming or what?!?''



MTC-00016746

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I 
feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software, and would like 
to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does 
not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage 
hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing 
products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers.
    David Puggie
    Mesa, Az



MTC-00016747

From: Larry Childers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a US citizen, and after hearing of the opportunity for the 
public to comment on the case I felt compelled to do so. In my 
opinion the settlement isn't good for the US, it's citizens, 
consumers, the economy, or the computer industry as a whole. It its 
also my opinion that in fact the settlement does more to help 
Microsoft than punish it. Microsoft can not, and should not continue 
on it's current course without dire consequences to the US economy, 
and more so the global economy. It has already been proven Microsoft 
is guilty of anti-competitive practices, yet no real form of 
punishment has been proposed. As a US tax-payer, and computer user, 
I insist the government I support place much harsher penalties on 
Microsoft to prevent them from continuing with the business 
practices they have been found guilty of.
    Thank you for your time.
    Larry Childers
    South Charleston, WV



MTC-00016748

From: Michael Hasse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I find the Microsoft settlement to be quite unacceptable not 
only as a computer professional, but also as a United States 
citizen. We are setting a poor example for the rest of the world if 
this is the best we can do.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Hasse
    425-330-7583



MTC-00016749

From: John Ousterhout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this message as part of the ``public 
comments'' on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    The proposed settlement is not in the public interest and must 
be rejected. It neither corrects the damage that has resulted from 
Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position, nor does it provide 
effective measures to restrain Microsoft from future abuses.
    In considering this proposed settlement, please consider 
Microsoft's past behavior. Microsoft is a ruthless organization that 
will exploit every opportunity and loophole, legal or otherwise, to 
gain advantage. The company is utterly unrepentant about its past 
illegal behavior and has that behavior wired into its to corporate 
genes; I doubt that the company could change its behavior even if it 
wanted to (which it doesn't).
    Therefore, it will require exceptional measures to prevent 
abuses in the future; the measures in the proposed settlement are 
nowhere near strong enough to restrain a company like Microsoft. For 
example, the technical committee has its no teeth whatsoever; it 
can't even go public with its findings!
    Imagine a similar case in the criminal domain, with a similar 
settlement. A gang of criminals has robbed a series of banks, making 
away with millions of dollars before eventually being apprehended. 
After an extended trial, the criminals are found guilty. Then, 
before the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor agrees to a 
settlement: no jail time for the criminals and they get to keep all 
the money they stole. However, they do promise not to rob any more 
banks, and they also agree to the formation of a ``technical 
committee'', which will follow the gang around to make sure 
they don't rob any more banks. However, the technical committee is 
not allowed to say anything in public if they see that the gang has 
indeed started robbing banks again. Would such a settlement be 
considered to be in the public interest? No way! And the proposed 
Microsoft settlement shouldn't be either.
    I believe that the proposed settlement would actually encourage 
Microsoft to engage in unlawful activities in the future, because 
the penalty for the unlawful activity is minuscule compared to the 
business benefits derived from the unlawful behavior.
    What has really happened here is that Microsoft has worn down 
its opponents to the point where they lost their will to proceed 
(and the Bush administration had no interest in this case anyway). 
This is exactly the sort of situation where we depend on a strong 
judiciary to stand up for the public interest and make sure that 
justice is done. Please do the right thing and reject this appalling 
settlement.



MTC-00016750

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General:
    As a private US citizen, and a practicing software engineer, I 
want to express my disappointment with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Please note my expressed dissatisfaction with 
Microsoft's rapacious business practices, and the weakness of the 
remedies outlined in the settlement.
    Microsoft, a monopolist, refuses to embrace any meaningful 
correction, soldiering on in denial without offering the public any 
apology following their resounding defeat at trial. Microsoft's 
incredible display of innocence is surprisingly eclipsed by their 
cynical jab at Apple as outlined in their attempts to settle the 
Civil Lawsuits from California.
    Please send this intransigent defendant one very clear message. 
They are guilty and they will pay the price for lawbreaking. Respect 
for the Judiciary and The Rule of Law is a critical factor when 
calculating remedies for Microsoft.
    In my opinion, the only remedy Microsoft will understand will 
require some ``crown jewels'' provision like placing 
Windows Operating Systems in the public domain. Take a page out of 
the Drug War playbook: ``the fruits of illegal activities cease 
to be private property and become subject to seizure.''
    Sincerely
    Marc Giannoni



MTC-00016751

From: Bryant, Doug
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a BAD idea. It is bad for 
consumers.
    It will not alive Microsoft's stranglehold on the industry.
    Doug Bryant
    Arthur D. Little
    5300 International Blvd.
    North Charleston, SC 29418
    email: [email protected]
    voice: (843)760-3635
    fax: (843)207-5444



MTC-00016752

From: Michael Bowen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you under my rights contained in the Tunney act 
concerning the

[[Page 26308]]

proposed settlement in re the Unites States vs. Microsoft. I believe 
the proposed settlement does a poor job in reducing Microsoft's 
monopolistic power and in providing at least a level playing field 
to competitors.
    In brief, I feel Microsoft has and exercises monopolistic power 
through its operating system and application products in what may be 
one of this country's most important industries-computer 
software. It is generally understood that software is what drives 
hardware development and sales. Information technology in all of its 
ramifications is crucial to our competitive position in the world. 
To leave one company with over 95% control of the basic software 
used by our IT infrastructure is dangerous.
    This danger is compounded by virtue of Microsoft's having 
attained its position by using monopolistic and anti-competitive 
practices. It is further compounded by Microsoft's products being 
inferior in design and structure to other alternatives.
    How do we rectify this serious problem? I realize this is a 
complex question, but the simple answer would be to force Microsoft 
to place its Windows Application Programming Interface and the file 
formats of its Office programs IN FULL into the public domain. Over 
time, programmers and other various interested parties would be able 
to use this information to provide some credible competition to 
some, but not all, of Microsoft's monopolistic products. This would 
foster and preserve our country's strength in IT and would offer 
competitive products.
    Therefore, my request is please make the Windows API and Office 
file formats publicly available.
    Yours sincerely,
    Michael C. Bowen
    [email protected]



MTC-00016753

From: Brian D. Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe that the proposed settlement against Microsoft is too 
weak. The findings of fact by Judge Jackson clearly find that 
Microsoft is a monopoly, and the remedy phase of the trial should 
include some kind of punishment against the company. This is a 
company that, based on past experience, will have no trouble 
complying with the letter of the law in the settlement while 
blatantly violating its spirit. To them, it doesn't really matter. 
It'll be another 5 or 6 years before the government brings up 
another antitrust suit for Microsoft's anticompetitive actions in 
say, 2001.
    The proposed final judgement also does not give adequate powers 
to the oversight committee. First, how will the oversight committee 
be chosen? There should be a panel of objective industry experts who 
understand the software industry in detail. Even so-called experts 
from places such as AOL and Sun Microsystems all have a personal 
agenda. Second, what powers will the oversight committee have to 
punish Microsoft if more anticompetitive practices are found? They 
should be given powers to levy extremely heavy fines on Microsoft if 
this is the case. The fines should be based on a percentage of the 
revenue they derive from the products or services in which the 
company exhibited the anticompetitive practices. Something needs to 
be done to keep Microsoft on an even playing field.
    Reject the proposed final judgement. It does far too little to 
have any impact on Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Elliott



MTC-00016754

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to take this opportunity to show my dissatisfaction 
with the current microsoft settlement.
    In my mind, it only perpetuates the same crimes that microsoft 
was supposed to atone for-by extending the monopoly into the 
education market.



MTC-00016755

From: Christopher Mende
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I think the current proposed settlement is a sell-out and a 
continual example of compromise to Microsoft.
    CSM



MTC-00016756

From: Laura Wick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:59am
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Under the provisions of the Tunney Act, I respectfully ask that 
my comments, outlined below, be considered by the court before 
finalization of the settlement of the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case.
    The proposed settlement is, in my opinion, a travesty. In order 
for there to be even a semblance of justice, a proper settlement 
must:
    1. Provide redress to the companies whose software innovation 
has been denied access to markets by the continuing illegal 
monopolistic practices of the Microsoft corporation. It is actually 
frightening to consider all the innovations the computing public 
will never have because these companies have been denied access to 
the markets. Not only can their existing products not get to us, but 
they have been denied the resources to develop additional products 
that probably would be far superior to the Microsoft products so 
vulnerable to viruses that we use today.
    2. Require restructuring of Microsoft Corporation and require 
restraints on the resulting companies to effectively deny their 
ability to achieve the same result yet another time, and provide ALL 
companies equal and open access to all their products'' 
interfaces and formats.
    3. Provide severe punitive economic sanctions to discourage and 
prevent such an outrageous corporate injury to the free market 
enterprise in the United States of America from ever happening 
again.
    Sincerely,
    Laura B. Wick
    San Diego, California



MTC-00016757

From: August Zajonc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    The fact that nine states despite a natural tendency to work to 
settle these cases have not joined the settlment speaks volumes.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. This comment period is a part of the process 
written into law, and I hope the court at leasts finds a chance to 
read through some of these comments.
    Sincerely,
    August



MTC-00016758

From: Iaquinta, Larry
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not like the proposed settlement with the Microsoft Corp. 
Microsoft business practices have been hurting the computer industry 
for years, and Microsoft should be held accountable. Our government 
should stop Microsoft from their unethical and illegal business 
practices, and not let them off with a slap on the wrist. This will 
only encourage this type of business practices. Larry Iaquinta



MTC-00016759

From: Esben Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not an American Citizen and I do presently not live in the 
USA, although I have stayed there for 16 months in total as a 
student and as a scientist. But Microsoft's monopoly is worldwide so 
I feel I too should have a right to comment.
    Now I work as a software developer in Denmark and I feel the 
enormeous pressure on companies and employees for using Microsoft 
products, not because they are better but because of 
interoperability problems and lack of support of other platforms by 
third party products. Simple things like browsing the companies 
intranet with anything but Internet Explorer because the 
authorization scheme used by the Microsoft server is not compliant 
with the

[[Page 26309]]

HTTP-protocol. Thus deploying other clients into the company is 
impossible without redoing the whole infrastructure first. At home 
we use Linux as the platform, although we still keep an Windows 98 
around to run programs only available on Windows. It can be done but 
due to a lot of interoperability problems and lack of support it is 
a hard -and mostly impossible for a non-technical home user. Not 
because Linux in itself is that hard to use, but because the 
homeuser can't get any help with simple things like setting up his 
internet dialup and stuff like that simply because those companies 
don't have supporters who know Linux. They are thus locked into 
using Windows even though other products in itself might be better.
    But in itself Linux is a good product. Which is very surprising 
considered that it is developed in according to communist 
principles: Linux itself and much of the software ussually comming 
along with it is developed according to the economical model, where 
people work and share because they want to do so-not for 
money. And the result can compete with Windows, the frontrunner of 
the capitalistic system!! How can that be? All experience tells us 
that free competition is much better than communism and socialism. 
So what is wrong? The answer is obivious from the previous sentense: 
Free competition. We don't have free competition. If we had this 
situation would never have occured.
    Therefore I beg you to do your duty and restore free competition 
to the software market. As others have said (for instance http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html) the settlement is totally 
inappropiate in doing that. In my view only a split up of Microsoft 
into into smaller companies-basicly one for each product they 
have. First then will these and other vendors truely start to 
compete.
    Esben Nielsen
    Work:
    Cotas Computer Technology A/S
    Paludan Mullersvej 82
    8200 Aarhus N
    Private
    Moellegade 7A, 3., 4
    8000 Aarhus C
    Phone: +45 86 12 73 79
    Mobile: +45 27 13 10 05



MTC-00016761

From: Daniel Berlinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry. I would also suggest a reading of the essay 
posted here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Some serious shortcomings relate to:
    1) Middleware.-The current language in Section H.3 states 
``Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use 
in interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the 
context of general Web browsing)'' does nothing to limit the 
company's ability to tie customers and restrict competition in non 
Web-based networked services under .NET, as they fall ``outside 
the context of general Web browsing''.
    Microsoft has already begun abusing its desktop monopoly to tie 
customers int .NET revenue streams and set up a new monopoly over 
the network. Part 2 of the same section states ``that 
designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a 
reasonable technical requirement...'' essentially gives 
Microsoft a veto over any competitor's product.
    They can simply claim it doesn't meet their ``technical 
requirements.''
    2) Interoperability.-Under the definition of terms, 
``Communications Protocol'' means the set of rules for 
information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a 
Windows Operating System Product on a client computer and Windows 
2000 Server or products marketed as its successors running on a 
server computer and connected via a local area network or a wide 
area network.'' This definition explicitly excludes the SMB/
CIFS (Samba) protocol and all of the Microsoft RPC calls needed by 
any SMB/CIFS server to adequately interoperate with Windows 2000. 
Microsoft could claim these protocols are used by Windows 2000 
server for remote administration and as such would not be required 
to be disclosed. The Samba team have written this up explicitly 
here: http://linuxtoday.com/
news-story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-20-OP-MS
    3) General veto on interoperability.-In section J., the 
document specifically protects Microsoft from having to 
``document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions 
of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications 
Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of 
anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without 
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement 
criteria'' Since the .NET architecture being bundled into 
Windows essentially builds ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, and authentication 
systems'' into all levels of the operating system, ANY API, 
documentation, or communication layer can fall into this category. 
This means that Microsoft never has to disclose any API by claiming 
it's part of a security or authorization system, giving them a 
complete veto over ALL disclosure.
    4) Veto against Open Source.-Substantial amounts of the 
software that runs the Internet is ``Open Source'', which 
means it's developed on a non-commercial basis by nonprofit groups 
and volunteers. Examples include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. 
Under section J.2.c., Microsoft does not need to make ANY API 
available to groups that fail to meet ``reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its business.'' This explicitly gives them a 
veto over sharing any information with open source development 
projects as they are usually undertaken on a not-for-profit basis 
(and therefore would not be considered authentic, or viable 
businesses).
    These concerns can be met in the following ways:
    1) Middleware: Extend middleware interoperability with a 
Microsoft server to ALL contexts (both within general Web browsing 
as well as other networked services such as are those being included 
under .NET).
    2) Interoperability: Require full disclosure of ALL protocols 
between client and Microsoft server (including remote administration 
calls)
    3) General veto on interoperability: Require Microsoft to 
disclose APIs relating to ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption, or authentication 
systems'' to all.
    4) Veto against Open Source: Forbid Microsoft from 
discriminating between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API 
disclosure.



MTC-00016762

From: Ben Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has CONTINUALLY engaged in monopolistic business 
practices, and they have become more obvious in the last few years. 
I think this settlement is a joke! The terminology is not specific 
enough and only covers a narrow window of products or items. Without 
more specific terms, do you really want us to believe that ANYTHING 
with Microsoft is going to change? They have already started 
implementing .NET, which will essentially give them more control 
over the Internet. They are already placing restrictions in their 
EULAs that make it so you cannot run their software legally on 
anything other then Windows machines, and you cannot run their 
software with open-source or free software. Where does this leave 
the competition? Where does this leave the consumer, of all people? 
As a professional in the industry, I can tell you that Microsoft has 
the biggest security holes and the worst prices. Why give them even 
more room to exploit that? Let's shut them down now, while we still 
can. Even the playing field so that new technologies cannot be 
crushed by mere purchasing power. Make the computer industry a fair 
place to do business.
    Ben Brown
    Network Administrator
    The Video Journal of Education & TeachStream
    [email protected]
    Office: 800.572.1153
    Fax: 888.566.6888



MTC-00016763

From: Sam Gorton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello; I am a US Citizen living in Massachusetts, and I would 
like to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement as per the 
Tunney act. Regardless of the wisdom of

[[Page 26310]]

settling with Microsoft, I see two major problems with the 
settlement as written:
    1) There is no enforcement mechanism within in the 
settlement-if Microsoft violates the settlement, what recourse 
does the public have? In particular, what -timely- 
recourse does the public have, without starting a new multi-year 
anti-trust suit?
    2) The settlement allows Microsoft the latitude of determining 
who to disclose its APIs to-which allows is to arbitrarily 
exclude competitors and also makes it possible for Microsoft to use 
``anticompetetive'' practices against Open Source 
solutions.
    As a computer security professional, I can tell you that overly 
secretive software combined with poor quality control are a 
significant source of vulnerabilities. Because of how many civilian 
goverment and Department of Defense computers rely on Microsoft 
software, I believe it is critical to the health of the US 
information infrastructure to require some level of openness and 
competition from Microsoft.
    Sam Gorton
    [email protected]
    624 Boston Ave #9B
    Medford, MA 02144



MTC-00016764

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is obviously guilty of breaking the law. As a de facto 
monopolist, they are not allowed to engage in such predatory 
practices.
    The exclusionary contracts they struck with PC manufacturers 
have damaged many companies.
    MS products are often designed to exclude the use of 
applications created by competitors, and MS knows that with their 
market dominance (to the point of monopoly position) will cause 
users to have to use MS applications in order to have access. They 
often take advantage of recognized standards for interoperability 
and modify them so as to interoperate only with MS products, 
excluding any competitors. They realize that many of their customers 
are unaware of this interoperability problem, and will assume that 
it's the competitors'' problem; their solution: just use MS 
products.
    The proposed settlement, allowing MS to continue such anti-
competitive methods while still maintaining their monopoly position 
provide no remedy at all. As a result, law-breaking is rewarded by 
acceptance of the status quo.
    Dave Brown Austin, TX



MTC-00016765

From: sara maamouri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sara Maamouri



MTC-00016766

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea, it does very 
little to stop Microsoft from continuing to harm competition in the 
operating systems market, to stop microsoft from continuing to 
leverage it's monoply into other markets, and very little to punish 
them for previous illegal behaviour.
    I think a new settlement is in order.
    [email protected]
    Guy Albertelli



MTC-00016768

From: Steve Holder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Holder



MTC-00016790

From: Tom Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    When Microsoft gets it right their software is great: as a 
writer I worship Microsoft word and I feel the Microsoft Office 
Suite is excellent. I also prefer Microsoft's pocket program for the 
handheld PC's over Palm's. But Microsoft doesn't always produce the 
best software, and their browser is a great example.
    I use Netscape Communicator because I feel it is more intuitive 
and user friendly than Internet Explorer. I have twice tried to 
convert to Internet Explorer-once for a YEAR!-and both 
times gone back to Netscape as my preferred browser. Admittedly 
Internet Explorer is at this point as good a browser as Netscape's, 
but only because Microsoft has been forced to equal the competition 
they squashed.
    I recently was forced to install Internet Explorer's latest 
version into my OS in order to install Microsoft Outlook 2000, which 
is necessary to have installed in order to sync my Journada 520 
handheld with my PC. Now how insidious is that? Microsoft Outlook 
2000 is a SEPARATE program from Internet Explorer: at least it's 
sold that way- it is NOT BUNDLED with Internet Explorer. When 
I installed the upgraded Internet Explorer it converted all my files 
saved in Netscape to Internet Explorer files! Thanks a lot! Since I 
downloaded the I.E. upgrade for free, and it looked pretty good, I 
actually tried it for awhile. Without going into the details of the 
various frustrations I ran into with it, suffice it to say I went 
back to Netscape Communicator within a week.
    User preference aside, another reason I prefer Netscape is the 
security issue: because it is NOT integrated with the windows system 
my OS is less susceptible to attack from viruses transmitted over 
the internet.
    My personal preference would be for there to be a stripped down, 
and cheaper, Windows OS available to which I, and computer 
manufacturers, could add the software they liked: Microsoft's OR a 
competitor's. This is the only way I can imagine innovation sparked 
by competition can continue in software. If Microsoft wants to offer 
their ``souped up'' system with everything bundled 
in-fine-but I think it would be surprising how many 
consumers would opt for the ``stripped down'' alternative 
if it was available.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices must be stopped, and in my 
opinion they should pay compensation to Netscape for the business 
they stole by giving away their inferior product as an alternative 
in order to kill their competition. Their intent is so transparent 
it's ridiculous. I wish you the best of luck in trying to craft an 
equitable solution which will result in the return to true free 
enterprise competition in the digital world.
    Thomas P. Johnson
    2599 Warwick Lane
    Santa Cruz, CA 95065
    (831) 464-3120



MTC-00016791

From: Carolyn Thurlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have read the proposed settlement and have kept track of the 
findings of the court over the last several years. I did not author 
the following comment, however I agree wholeheartedly with its 
content. I would also like to add that, given Microsoft's track 
record of lobbying tactics and poll-rigging, it may be of some 
interest to the court to verify that the people sending in comments 
are not deceased.-CLT
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial.

[[Page 26311]]

    I feel that the current proposed settlement does not fully 
redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit 
their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft'' s previous actions. There are no provisions that 
correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the 
future repetition of those abuses.
    This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If 
a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit 
from those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Carolyn Thurlow
    2239 Flower Tree Cir
    Melbourne, FL 32935



MTC-00016792

From: Jamie Siglar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ/Microsoft Anti-Trust case personnel,
    As a concerned citizen, voter, and someone who's already been 
negatively impacted by Microsoft's licensing shenanigans, I'd like 
to comment on some elements that seem to be missing from the 
proposed final settlement.
    A little over a year ago, I was preparing to buy my new 
``box'' (PC); as my previous PC was a custom-configured 
box from Dell, I went up to www.dell.com and attempted to configure 
my new box there. However, Dell was unable to configure my box the 
way I needed it; specifically, to sell me a shrink-wrapped 
(``full) copy of Windows2000 instead of a ``recovery 
disk''. Said recovery disk would only support the original 
configuration of the machine, as shipped to me by Dell. And they 
couldn't sell me a ``bare'' box that I could install my 
own Win2K shrink-wrap version onto.
    I'd been alerted to this by a Microsoft-published article, 
describing to OEM's the ``danger'' of selling bare 
boxes-which only experienced developers would ever want...
    I complained to Microsoft regarding this licensing problem; as a 
computer multimedia consultant, I have to reconfigure my box on the 
order of once per month-testing video, audio, and similar 
specialized boards (game controllers, video-capture, etc.) for 
compatibility with my clients'' software. Their licensing 
scheme would, in effect, put me out of business, unless I buy 2 
copies of their software for each box.
    A member of Microsoft's marketing replied to my complaint, 
reiterating that bare boxes were dangerous because people could 
pirate Microsoft's software; however, he never addressed the issue 
of my business, which I described explicitly.
    Instead of buying from Dell, I had a ``bare'' box 
built locally; it's never worked as well as my old Dell, and it cost 
several hundred dollars more than the Dell box would have, could I 
have obtained the configuration I needed.
    I've also had to manually remove pieces of Microsoft software 
from my boxes; specifically, Outlook Express and Exchange, because 
the security leaks they pose would force my clients to drop me as a 
vendor. ``Manually'' in this case includes deleting the 
relevant .EXE files and going into the Registry via RegEdit and 
altering the base configuration so Microsoft doesn't attempt to re-
install these applications from the Web. I use compatible mail 
software (``The Bat'' from RitLabs) that does not include 
the various security holes reported for Outlook in the popular and 
trade media.
    The proposed settlement does not prohibit Microsoft from 
requiring customers who obtain their software from OEM channels from 
requiring the purchase of a second copy in order to reconfigure the 
PC.
    The proposed settlement does not prohibit Microsoft from 
requiring OEMs to sell an OS-not necessarily a Microsoft OS, 
it could easily be a flavor of Unix-with every PC; nor does it 
prohibit Microsoft from including intrusive ``activation'' 
software within it's OS that attempts to notify Microsoft every time 
the configuration is changed. I've experienced this with my 
clients'' new XP boxes, and decided against using that OS 
because of this.
    The proposed settlement does not address Microsoft's continuing 
anti-competitive behavior that allows them to product-dump-the 
inclusion of OutlookExpress and Internet Explorer 
specifically-by including their own software for 
``free'' as part of the OS. This has already driven 
Netscape out of business, and with some of the aspects of the 
Windows Media Player may be targeted at Adobe, Macromedia, and Real.
    The proposed settlement does not prohibit Microsoft from using 
an ``upgrade'' to included software from crippling third-
party software; this past fall, upgrades to the Windows Media Player 
and Internet Explorer caused failures in old code (produced in 
Director ``Shockwave''and Authorware 
``WebPlayer'' from Macromedia, and ``RealAudio'' 
from RealPlayer) when I attempted to view year-old sites I'd created 
using the brand-spanking-new IE6. They still work perfectly under 
IE5.5.
    In closing, while I believe the intent is good, I don't see that 
the current proposed final settlement does enough to curb 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior; but I think that the proposal 
could be adjusted to make it closer to ideal.
    Whether Microsoft, the AG's office, and the states can all agree 
to changes is another story entirely. Obviously. Thanks for your 
patience and consideration,
    Jamie Siglar
    Computer Multimedia Consultant
    Somerville, Massachusetts



MTC-00016793

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. As an experienced technical consultant and 
business owner, I would like to point out the following reasons why 
I do NOT support the proposed settlement:
    I. The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems
    A) Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    II. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions 
and Provisions
    A) The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    B) The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    C) The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET, 
and subsequent similar products with competing middleware.
    D) The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    E) The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    F) The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    G) The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    H) The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents or other similar 
applications.
    I) The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users and non-Microsoft developers, and opens the doors to 
potential future lawsuits against Microsoft competitors.

[[Page 26312]]

    III. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    A) Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    B) Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    C) Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux!
    (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    IV. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    A) Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems. Modified implementations of Java and 
the Kerberos authentication protocol immediately come to mind.
    V. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    A) The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    B) The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs- including regional ``white box'' OEMs which 
are historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    C) The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    VI. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Thank you for your time.
    Geoffrey M. Silver
    [email protected]
    President & Chief Architect
    ``Making Linux Work. For You.''
    US Linux Networks, LLC
    http://uslinux.net
    2312 Lookout Road
    Phone: (703) 431-1012
    Haymarket, Virginia 20169-1515
    Fax: (253) 660-9266



MTC-00016796

From: Grell, Brian D
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the proposed final judgement in the 
Microsoft case. It is true the the proposed judgement will lift some 
barriers on OEMs, it does not take into account the changing 
business model of Microsoft. Microsoft, with its new .NET 
technology, will be starting its subscription service, which will 
require people to ``pay'' for a product that is many years 
old, and could potentially contain very little new material.
    Any third party application that is made to run on the OS will 
be subject to this subscription, whether or not the third party 
software requires a subscription of its own. So, a third party 
application that is made to run indefinetely, will be subject to the 
term limits under Microsofts subscription. This is wrong. Third 
Party applications that have no term limits, and should be 
accessable forever, independent of the OS. The final judgement does 
not even mention this, and hopes to solve the problems of yesterday, 
with OEM licensing and releasing APIs to the Microsoft OS. Until the 
judgement takes into account all aspects of the Microsoft business 
(past and future) it needs to be reworked.
    Brian Grell
    Fab15 Automation
    Office: (503)642-0724
    Pager: (503)921-4425



MTC-00016797

From: Kevan Burnfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    As a citizen of the United States of America I am writing to 
voice my opinion and objection to the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. Microsoft has been found guilty of the charges brought 
against them in a court of law. These charges were proven and since 
that time Microsoft has continued to practice the same disregard for 
the law that they showed before the Department of Justice found them 
guilty. Microsoft obviously cannot be trusted to police themselves 
even after the verdict was handed down and cannot be trusted to do 
so under a settlement that soley benefits them and grants them 
massive loopholes to continue their monopolistic practices.
    It was shown over and over again in the trial that Microsoft 
hindered inovations of the other companies in their own interest. 
They used their monopoly in the operating system market to force 
computer manufacturers to offer ONLY their products and used their 
relationships with software developers to develop only for their 
products under harsh penalties. The Microsoft settlement is a 
disservice to the people of not only the US but of the world. It 
will not address the issues in a manner that will prevent or deter 
Microsoft from continuing their current aggendas and will give them 
license to do so.
    As I said above, even after the verdict was handed down against 
them Microsoft has continued to be caught in the same illegal 
practices they committed before. Does this not show a deliberate 
disregard for the law and for the judgement against them? This 
settlement should not be allowed to hamper the hands of the Justice 
Department in protecting the citizens of the United States.
    Sincerely,
    Kevan L. Burnfield
    6043 Cedar Court
    Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852



MTC-00016798

From: Alan Post
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Alan Post



MTC-00016799

From: Erik Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. Please do not 
allow it to move forward in its current form. Microsoft is once 
again using the terms of an agreement to wipe out competition. 
Specifically, because Microsoft maintains an operating system 
monopoly, Section III(J)(2) will leave Open Source projects such as 
Apache, Samba, and Sendmail very vulnerable to Microsoft's predatory 
practices. Because under the terms of this agreement, Microsoft 
would not be forced to describe or license protocols that affect 
companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as businesses. This 
would effectively allow Microsoft to write code in such a way as to 
make it impossible to use with Open Source code, thereby forcing 
users of Microsoft operating systems to use only software that 
Microsoft creates itself or allows non-competitors to create.
    Microsoft is doing what it has done many times in the past. It 
has squashed competitors through tactics of intimidation, buyout, 
and outright theft. Now it is attempting to reverse the initial 
verdict which declared unequivocally that they were a monopoly, back 
to their advantage.
    As a taxpayer, I find it disgusting that Microsoft is allowed to 
act in such a cavalier manner toward the US justice system. They 
continually display an arrogance that shows they have no regard for 
the law. Please, do not allow them to remap the playing field to 
their advantage. It is not in the interests of the United States for 
one company to exert so much control over the electronic 
infrastructure of our country-as ongoing and extremely 
alarming security problems with Microsoft products demonstrate.
    Thank you,
    Erik Schmidt
    744 Nobel Drive
    Apartment C
    Santa Cruz, CA 95060



MTC-00016800

From: Alan Eshelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/23 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft calls the open source software movement a threat to 
innovation and is being given permission to withhold 
interoperability information from any open source developer if 
Microsoft deems them lacking in ``authenticity and viability of 
its business,'' while at the same time calling Linux (an open 
source operating system) a ``cancer.'' This is a huge hole 
which will be exploited by microsoft, please fix this and make 
Microsoft accountable for their past actions and prevent future 
abuses by this monopoly.
    Even more disturbing is this from Ralph Nader's letter: 
``Even within the brief period of the term of the agreement, 
Microsoft has too much room to co-opt the enforcement effort. 
Microsoft, despite having been found

[[Page 26313]]

to be a law breaker by the courts, is given the right to select one 
member of the three members of the Technical Committee, who in turn 
gets a voice in selecting the third member. The committee is gagged, 
and sworn to secrecy, denying the public any information on 
Microsoft's compliance with the agreement, and will be paid by 
Microsoft, working inside Microsoft's headquarters. The public won't 
know if this committee spends its time playing golf with Microsoft 
executives, or investigating Microsoft's anticompetitive activities. 
Its ability to interview Microsoft employees will be extremely 
limited by the provisions that give Microsoft the opportunity to 
insist on having its lawyers present. One would be hard pressed to 
imagine an enforcement mechanism that would do less to make 
Microsoft accountable, which is probably why Microsoft has accepted 
its terms of reference.''
    Please repair these things, Microsoft is not being punished, 
monitored, or restricted in its illegal practices by the ``US 
v. Microsoft proposed final order.''
    Alan [email protected]
    Network Administrator-CE Software, Inc.
    http://www.cesoft.com-515-221-1801



MTC-00016801

From: Ted Kisner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Please don't settle with Microsoft! Take away their monopolistic 
powers and make sure justice is done! Don't let down the people of 
this great nation!
    Sincerely,
    Erin Riley



MTC-00016802

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to make my comments on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement and will try to avoid the normal rhetoric from either 
side.
    The legal decision has been rendered that Microsoft is a 
monopoly. That creates certain responsibilities that do not apply to 
a non-monopoly holder. Given Microsoft's position and the critical 
nature of their software in the current US economy, I believe the 
most important requirement is publishing and documenting the API for 
everything. That allows programmers to write programs to connect 
with and interact with Microsoft's programs and operating systems.
    I do not believe giving Microsoft the ability to decide which 
APIs it will publish is in the best interests of the country or the 
economy or the consumers. Giving such control away to Microsoft 
effectively gives them the ability to limit any competition. Lack of 
competition is bad for the consumer. (If the consumer was not being 
overcharged, Microsoft would not be increasing its cash by an 
estimated $1.5 billion/month). The documentation needs to be 
sufficient that programmers can write programs that connect with the 
Microsoft operating systems, ``middleware'' and 
applications products on a level playing field with the Microsoft 
programmers.
    However, I also don't believe that Microsoft should have to 
publish anything which is behind the API. Such an action would be 
too much interference with Microsoft's ability to compete itself.
    I object to being forced to buy computers with Microsoft 
software (with a built in price increase) that I have no intention 
of using. I also object to discovering language in EULA,s that limit 
my ability to use the software that I have ``licensed'' to 
a single computer, that I cannot modify without the permission of 
Microsoft, that I cannot use for purposes that Microsoft finds 
objectionable (e.g., using their word processing program to write a 
letter critical of Microsoft), and that effectively asserts some 
type of control over hardware that I, not Microsoft, own. (By the 
way, I do find it incongruous that Microsoft and other 
``applications software'' developers claim property rights 
based on licensing, not sales, but then want to pay customs and 
income taxes based on ``sales'', not 
``licenses''.)
    Very truly yours,
    Peter F. Hiltz
    GMAC Tax Counsel
    P.S. The opinions voiced are not necessarily the opinions of 
General Motors; I have'nt asked.



MTC-00016803

From: Dave Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement with Microsoft will not alter this convitcted 
monopolists practice or allow for real freedom of choice for 
consumers. Please rethink and come up with a settlement that is fair 
for consumers instead of big business. Corporations are not equal to 
citizens. The government was formed to serve the citizens not 
corporations.
    The settlement will not help consumers at all.
    David Bauer
    728 County Route 7
    East Schodack NY 12063



MTC-00016804

From: Joseph L. Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    Please consider this a vote AGAINST the current Microsoft anti-
trust settlement. I feel that the current settlement will do little 
to stem the rising tide of Microsoft monopoly abuses; in its current 
form Microsoft can easily pay tremendous fines unfazed; or pay lip 
service to any well intentioned restrictions while doggedly pursuing 
(as they are currently with Windows XP) further abusive strategies 
while ``redefining'' the market, products, and tactics to 
make those abuses technically not covered by the settlement. 
Microsoft has shown itself to be an abusive monopoly, willing to 
pursue even the most reprehensible courses of action to ensure their 
dominance. I strongly suspect that only fundamental structural 
changes to Microsoft (ie, a breakup) will have any lasting benefit 
for the citizens of the USA.
    Sincerely
    Joseph L. Brown
    105 Ross Blvd., Apt. F-2
    Hattiesburg, MS 39401-6924



MTC-00016805

From: Lauren Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. There are many problems with the proposed 
settlement, namely:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems:
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions:
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product, but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The 
PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with 
competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.

[[Page 26314]]

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently used 
by Microsoft:

    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities Historically 
Used by Microsoft:

    Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities 
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs:

    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    I believe that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Lauren
    [email protected] Peterson
    Vital Net Ventures Corporation
    http://www.vitalnet.com/
    Web Design & 
Development-Hosting-Promotion-Domain Services
    phone: 561-393-1297
    toll-free: 1-888-458-4825 (888-45VITAL)
    toll-free fax: 1-888-866-4721
    mobile: 561-302-1297
    VITALNET.com Site Highlight:
    vitalCards http://www.vitalnet.com/vitalcards/index.html
    Send FREE Greeting Cards!



MTC-00016806

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Sir or Madam:
    It is my belief that the proposed Remedy for the Microsoft Anti-
trust violation is insufficient to alleviate the situation. It fails 
to adequately ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive 
conduct'', 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'' (Court of Appeals ruling, section V.D., p. 99).
    Please consider a stronger remedy. Microsoft to date has shown 
us little to no reason to think it capable of self governance in 
these areas.
    Anti-competitive practices continue unabated.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Philip R. Auld, Ph.D.



MTC-00016807

From: Alex Deucher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft's monopoly is 
stifling innovation in the PC world.
    Alex Deucher
    Arlington, VA



MTC-00016808

From: Seth House
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing because the proposed Microsoft settlement is no 
where near harsh enough a punishment. In fact, it very much appears 
that they are buying their vindication.
    The injustices caused by Microsofts anti-competitive business 
practices are much too great. Companies have died because of it, 
good technologies have been forgotton because of it.
    Please rethink your decision to let them off with a slap on the 
wrist.
    Sincerely,
    Seth House
    SLC, UT



MTC-00016809

From: Tony Spears
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea. The reasons are fairly 
obvious.
    Anthony Spears
    [email protected]



MTC-00016810

From: Conder, Daniel
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Short Answer: I urge to not settle.
    Long answer: but very worthy of reading. simply explains A 
conflict of interest arises if the company writing the operating 
system (OS) is the same company that writes applications (APPs). The 
intermingling of OS and APPs gives MS a huge unfair advantage. MS 
will argue that they are simply making their OS better. Do not be 
fooled by this. They can still do all of the features they want and 
include them in their OS.
    Solution: These additional functionalities to the OS are offered 
via the API (application program interface.) This published non-
visible interface can then be used by all software application 
manufactures including MS to write software.
    A good place to draw the boundary between OS and APP is where 
the code has a GUI (graphical user interface) or in laymen's terms 
if you can see it on the screen.
    Any settlement should have a provision to address this problem.
    Daniel Conder
    CC:`allutah(a)liberate.com'



MTC-00016811

From: Houghton, Adam
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft 
deserves to be punished more harshly for its behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Adam Houghton



MTC-00016812

From: Walt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This a message to voice my concern and opposition to the revised 
proposed Final Judgement against Microsoft.
    There are many flaws (legal technicalities perhaps) in the 
proposal. For example, definition U (Windows Operating System 
Product) is too narrowly defined and leaves much room for Microsoft 
to maneuver and avoid disclosure of information. Without much effort 
Microsoft can make sufficient changes to declare that their next 
WOSP is sufficiently different from its precursors that it is not a 
successor to any of them. The definition also does not include other 
products such as its PocketPC and TabletPC operating systems.
    I am also concerned that the proposal does not provide any 
substantive mention of Microsoft.NET. This is a potentially massive 
market that Microsoft has publically stated is their main focus. The 
potential for anticompetitive behaviour is great and Microsoft has 
the capability to create a very high barrier to entry for the market 
in short order.
    I would like to provide more but the major arguments have been 
well thought out and detailed at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html . I would encourage you to visit the link.
    walt



MTC-00016813

From: John (038) Trudy Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the US and a long time computer user, I am 
distressed over the proposed Microsoft Settlement. Most of the 
settlement allows Microsoft to continue their monopolistic 
practices.
    I will address two issues which are indicative of the greater 
problems with the proposed settlement. One, all the restrictions

[[Page 26315]]

only address commercial competitors. Not for profits, such as 
Apache, the major competitor in server software, and Linux, an 
operating system competitor, have no rights as the settlement is 
written.
    Two, the proposal to give schools Microsoft technology or 
``credit to purchase other products'' only allows 
Microsoft to monopolize the education market. The education system 
is so grossly underfunded that it would be forced to take the larger 
number of Microsoft refurbished products rather than purchase a 
lesser number of non-Microsoft products at retail value. Please 
consider modifying the settlement to truly solve Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices.
    Sincerely,
    Trudy E. Phillips
    Lynchburg, VA



MTC-00016814

From: David Kingsbury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement. The company 
was found guilty and this finding was upheld. It would be a waste of 
taxpayer money to let the results of this trial be thrown out by not 
imposing sanctions that are equal to the crime committed. Microsoft 
has had similar ``wrist-slaps'' in the past and both past 
and current actions indicate they will not change their way of doing 
business unless more stringent penalties are enacted. I personally 
have been impacted in harmful ways by Microsoft's past (and current) 
actions. While I would prefer the market to penalize Microsoft for 
their actions, the market in this case is so damaged that other 
remedies are needed. They have been tried and found guilty. Please 
do not let them off the hook yet again.
    David Kingsbury
    Eagan, MN USA
    These views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of 
my employer.



MTC-00016815

From: me here
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This is my voice on the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I feel 
that the proposed settlement will have little impact on Microsoft as 
a Monopoly or the way in which they conduct business. Microsoft has 
proven to me, from the beginning of this trail, that they care 
little for consumers best interest, but simply their best interest 
that all consumers run ONLY their software. They have also shown 
that they have never cared about the voice of the people who feel 
that they are not just in their actions, nor do they feel that our 
government will have any effect to them or their business practices. 
When I read the proposed settlement, I find that latter could very 
well be true.
    I am not going to begin to bring out specific points in the 
settlement that I feel need altered, removed, or any that need added 
simply due to the fact that there are documents that have already 
adequately described my feelings. These documents I am in the 
process of co-signing and they will be delivered to you as well.
    I am one voice. A single voice that cries out that justice be 
served. A single voice that hopes that it can help make a 
difference. A voice that does not have great material assets to 
directly challenge the powers that I disagree with. But I am a voice 
that cries out what I believe, and when joined with the voices of 
others that feel as I do, I am a voice that hopes that together we 
are heard. Most important, I am a voice that cries out because our 
country is founded on the belief that everyone has a right to 
express their concern on issues, and that their concern can be 
heard, and considered when decisions are made that will ultimately 
effect our lives, and the lives of every citizen.
    Thank You,
    Brad Myers



MTC-00016816

From: Simons, Nathan P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Microsoft has done irreparable damage to the computing industry 
as a whole, and inestimable damage to the American economy. To let 
them continue to practice their anti-competive practices is 
unthinkable, yet this is exactly what they intend to do. Since 
Microsoft does not have the wisdom and foresight to control itself, 
it is obvious that other measures must be taken before it is too 
late. I believe that the proposed settlement is bad. It is nothing 
more than yet another indulgence to a company that has had far too 
many. I believe that much stricter and harsher consequences must be 
levied upon Microsoft to bring them back into line and to help re-
open the door to innovation and healthy competition that is the 
hallmark of American business.
    I say this as an expert in technology; I have a Bachelor's of 
Science in Computer Science and I have been very familiar with 
technology for nearly a decade. I have seen many better companies 
and many better products than the ones that Microsoft produces be 
wiped out of existence merely to sustain Microsoft's profit margin. 
Please do not let them continue to stand in the way of progress and 
freedom.



MTC-00016817

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    B. Appointment of a Technical Committee
    8.The TC shall have the following powers and duties:
    c.The TC shall have access to Microsoft's source code, subject 
to the terms of Microsoft's standard source code Confidentiality 
Agreement ...
    This seems unreasonable to me. ``subject to the terms of 
Microsoft's standard source code Confidentiality Agreement''.
    This lets Microsoft define terms of this agreement via a back 
door. They could theoretically design multiple agreements and have 
the TC member(s) essentially denied access to anything of 
Microsoft's choosing. They technically could have a separate 
agreement for each piece of code. Have the confidentiality agreement 
be a standard military confidentiality agreement or some other 
recognized unbiased confidentiality agreement. In addition, which 
ever confidentiality agreement is chosen will be fully reviewed to 
the extent that it does not compromise the TC member(s) but does 
protect Microsoft from TC member abuses.
    What???? I just finished reading the REVISED PROPOSED FINAL 
JUDGMENT. What is this a slap on the wrist? What were they found 
guilty of? A misdemeanor? I believe that the Microsoft Corporation 
was found to be guilty of egregious violations of the Anti-Trust 
Laws. As such punishment should be comenserate or example setting as 
they have been found guilty of being a monopoly and for monopolistic 
practices.
    A proper settlement would include but not be limited to 
requiring full source code disclosure for all products that are 
delivered to non-microsoft personnel the moment that they are made 
available to any group within the Microsoft Corporate other than the 
group having developed the software. This includes documentation as 
well. The delivery of source code as well as documentation shall be 
provided separatly and simultaneously at a minimum on the same media 
as the product.
    In addition, all patents held by Microsoft, or any subsidiary, 
shall become public domain, without the possibility of 
reinstatement. Further, all applications for patents for software 
(including hardware encoded software) shall be summarily rejected 
for the duration of this judgment.
    In addition, Microsoft shall warranty all of their software for 
a term of no less than 10 years, and shall provide full, unhindered 
support for all of their warrantied software for twice the duration 
of the warranty on said software. This provision will be in effect 
in perpetuity for no less than 50 years from the effective date of 
this final judgment.
    In addition, Microsoft shall not retaliate against any OEM that 
seeks to alter a base installation of any Microsoft Operating System 
Product. Further Microsoft shall not retaliate nor require in any 
agreement, verbal, written, or understood the bundling of software. 
Microsoft shall not retaliate against any OEM for choosing to offer 
or install non-Microsoft products in a bundle or separately with any 
Microsoft Operating System Product. Microsoft shall not require 
payment for any Microsoft software that is not delivered as a part 
of an OEM offering whether the offering purchased or not. Microsoft 
shall not enter into exclusive agreements with OEMs. Microsoft shall 
not enter into agreements with OEMs which restrict OEMs from any 
type of non-Microsoft agreement(s).
    Microsoft shall not discriminate with respect to purchasers of 
their software, whether it is for development, or use, or any other 
reason. Microsoft shall retain copyrights and trademarks for their 
software. Microsoft shall define those programs that constitute the 
Microsoft Operating System. Those programs cannot be unbundled from 
the Microsoft Operating System. This will form a baseline. Any 
programs that are added

[[Page 26316]]

above and beyond this base installation shall not be bundled with 
the Microsoft Operation System(s). They shall be offered separately 
at a cost greater than the cost of media plus the cost of applying 
said programs to the media. Additional functionality cannot be added 
to the baseline at a future time. This is primarily for purposes of 
new dlls or other executable pieces of code or software.
    Changes can be made for purposes of fixing bugs/errors. 
Additional features shall not be added to the baseline software 
installation.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Burk



MTC-00016818

From: Greg Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am against the proposed settlement for Microsoft. I believe 
this settlement will not bring any harm to, or even slow down 
Microsoft. Microsoft has an illegal monopoly that should be punished 
for what it has done.
    Some of Microsoft's biggest competitors are not-for-profit 
companies. The number one competitor of Microsoft's Internet 
Information Services is the Apache web server, run by the Apache 
Foundation, a non-profit organization. A large reason that 
businesses these days are changing to Linux is because of its 
interoperability with Microsoft products. Samba interfaces with 
networked computers running Windows. Wine runs software made for 
Windows in Linux. If Microsoft is allowed this settlement, they can 
use there monopolistic powers to crush Samba and Wine, making Linux 
look much less appealing to businesses. The non-profit companies, 
such as Samba and Wine, need to be able to access Windows source 
code in order to be able to interface properly. Without the 
obligation to publish source code, Microsoft will change enough code 
with every release too crush these companies.
    These free open-source projects are the future of software. This 
settlement is not enough. All companies, commercial or not, need to 
have access to Microsoft source code and protocols. Free software is 
a competitor to Microsoft, but will soon be dead if the proposed 
settlement goes through.
    Greg Hanson
    SPO 900
    Luther College
    700 College Drive
    Decorah, IA 52101



MTC-00016819

From: Muruga Simmonds (by way of Muruga Simmonds 
(060)muruga(a)gill.co
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am vigorously opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. The proposed settlement does not fully 
redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit 
their ability to commit similar actions in the future. Also, the 
proposal provides inadequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundreds, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Microsoft seeks to stifle 
competition, rather than produce a better product.
    I applauded the Clinton administration's courage to prosecute 
Microsoft for their anti-competitive behavior and was disgusted by 
the Bush administration's decision to acquiesce when the government 
had the superior position by rule of the full bench of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) settlement was 
brokered by Bush administration appointee Assistant Attorney General 
Charles A. James, head of the DOJ's antitrust division. But career 
officials at the Justice Department, who had pursued the case since 
the beginning, displayed their displeasure with the agreement by not 
signing it. Also, the Attorneys General of 9 states and the District 
of Columbia found the proposed settlement to be substantially 
inadequate.
    I hope that the results of this settlement will incourage more 
innovation and competition in the software industry. No one wants 
Microsoft to disappear, just to allow others to compete with them.
    Thank you.
    Muruga Simmonds
    Software Engineer



MTC-00016820

From: Andy Mroczkowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the proposed settlement with Microsoft and think 
that another solution should be sought.
    Andy Mroczowski
    212 N. 34th St.
    Philadelphia, PA 19104
    267-248-1067



MTC-00016821

From: Peter Mastren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned about the lack of credible competition in the 
home PC marketplace. A perfect example of Microsofts total dominance 
in this area can be found in the Fry's Electronics advertising 
supplement to the Houston Chronicle on two successive Fridays, Jan 
11, 2002, and Jan 18, 2002. In the January 11 issue there appeared 
an ad for an ``Internet Ready Multimedia PC'' complete 
with ``Linux 1.3 Shell with Web Browsing, E-mail and Word 
Processing capabilities'' for $299.00 with a feature bullet 
item stating ``Upgradable to Windows XP''.
    In the January 18 issue there appears the very same 
``Internet Ready Multimedia PC'' but now ``With 
Bonus: Windows XP'' for $399.00. The computer is $100.00 more 
than it was just a week before and Windows XP is no longer an option 
but comes included in the ``In Store Price''.
    The computer advertised on January 11 would satisify the needs 
of many home computer users but it is no longer available. They must 
now pay an extra $100.00 for the same computer and get a copy of 
Windows XP that they might not need nor even want.
    How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for anyone 
but Microsoft? Where can I, as a consumer, go to find a computer 
that does not include Microsoft Windows? It's not possible, short of 
building my own computer from component parts, which is way beyond 
the abilities of most consumers!
    Microsoft must be prohibited from including Windows in the 
purchase price of a new computer but should be required to offer it 
as an additional cost, optional upgrade. I demand the right to 
purchase a computer with the software I want, or no software at all, 
instead of being forced to pay for something I will not use.
    I am concerned that the proposed settlement does nothing to 
prevent this type of abuse and that it will continue to be business 
as usual. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion.
    Peter F. Mastren
    [email protected]
    See Our Twins
    http://www.Mastren.org/Twins
    Houston Chronicle
    [email protected]
    Phone: (713) 220-7689
    Fax: (713) 354-3114
    If you're happy
    you're
    successful



MTC-00016822

From: warren thomason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The way things are looking now Microsoft is not being punished. 
The company has used its monopoly power to the detriment of the 
public. The punishment should be much stronger.
    Thanks,
    Warren Thomason



MTC-00016823

From: Joshua Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I don't like the proposed Microsoft settlement. If the crime is 
``monopoly'', then the punishment can't be ``give 
your monopolistic software to our school kids''. What better 
way to support the propagation of monopolistic software and 
practices? Also, what would the actual cost be to Microsoft if they 
give a market value of 1 billion in software to schools? The cost of 
software without support is very low... because Microsoft has 
already paid for all the costs associated with creating the 
software. For every $300 boxed set of Win2000 they ``give 
away'', it probably costs them $5 to $10 to produce. This isn't 
punishment.
    Thank you,
    Joshua Jensen
    4281 The Oaks Drive
    Raleigh, NC 27606



MTC-00016824

From: Fish Christopher G Contr 46 TS/OGET
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please please read the article

[[Page 26317]]

    http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/
index.html
    It is very important to the software industry as a whole that 
the points raised in this article are not overlooked.
    And the author put my concerns much more eloquently then I have 
time too.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher fish



MTC-00016825

From: Bruce Armstrong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe the proposed settlement is adequate. I add my 
voice in support of Dan Kegel who has created a comprehensive 
analysis of the problem (see http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html ). I also give support to his petition (see http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html)
    Bruce Armstrong
    Orem, Utah
    Software Quality Assurance Engineer
    NTT/Verio



MTC-00016826

From: Marc Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the current microsoft settlement is a BAD settlement



MTC-00016827

From: Frank Summers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my objection to the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft ant-trust case. It is not a fair settlement and it 
will have no real effect on Microsoft's predatory behavior.
    Microsoft has shown a long history of putting other companies 
out business by using their operating system monopoly. No 
applications software product stands any chance if Microsoft 
incorporates similar functionality into the operating system, 
bundles their own version with the operating systrem, or can provide 
deals to OEMs to use their software as part of operating system 
licensing.
    The only remedy that will promote a fair playing field for 
software vendors is to distinctly separate the operating system from 
the applications. Microsoft's operating system group must be split 
off into a separate company from their applications group.
    Only when the operating systems group does not have such extreme 
conflict-of-interest in favoring one group of applications over 
another can the software market be open to innovation. Without it, 
the operating system can always be written to favor Microsoft's own 
software and disadvantage everyone else's. It doesn't matter how 
many people are watching over them, by the time the damage has been 
done, it is irreparable. The software market moves too quickly for 
after-the-fact remedies. You must take steps to pre-empt the 
predatory behavior from ever starting.
    It has happened before, most notably in the web browser, and 
Microsoft has begun to usurp system control in favor of its .NET 
services. Can any other internet services provider compete against 
an application that is repeatedly offered and re-offered by the 
operating system itself? That is already a fact in Windows XP. No 
one would fund a start-up software company that might even approach 
competing against .NET. The next generation of innovation has 
already been stifled.
    Reject this flawed settlement and do some real good for the 
economy. Force Microsoft's applications and internet services and 
every other division to compete on a level playing field. Separate 
them from the operating system and stop letting them stack the deck 
in their favor.
    Frank Summers
    Astrophysicist
    Space Telescope Science Institute
    3700 San Martin Drive
    Baltimore, MD 21218



MTC-00016828

From: Michael Christiansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am taking the time to add my voice in protest to the proposed 
settlement of the DOJ's action against Microsoft. Briefly, I am 
disturbed that no real action is being taken to correct or constrain 
the monopoly that Microsoft has illegally used to build and maintain 
its near-total domination of the personal computer industry.
    I for one felt that the original judgment breaking Microsoft 
into two or more separate business entities was a workable solution. 
So long as sales of the operating systems can be tied to sales of 
applications and services (eg Office and IIS), Microsoft will 
continue to dominate this industry.
    Microsoft's operating systems must be limited to basic services 
upon which new products and services can be built. An operating 
systems provider should not be allowed to develop or market products 
and services as it has an unfair advantage. The operating system 
provider has access to the underlying code and developers (special 
knowledge of the operating system), and it is able to offset the 
cost of developing new products and services with revenues derived 
from operating systems sales.
    The current solution does not address any of these concerns and 
permits Microsoft to continue to dominate an important sector of our 
economy. I feel confident that if Microsoft were properly 
constrained, they would commit to building a quality operating 
system that the rest of the world could use to base new ideas and 
inventions upon. As it stands, the monopoly that Microsoft yields 
like a club will continue to stifle the innovation that they are so 
vocal about promoting.
    Thank you for your time,
    Dr. Michael Christiansen
    3720 Trilogy Drive
    Plano, TX. 75075



MTC-00016829

From: Joe Sislow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my displeasure with the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement. The simplest reason is that there is no 
effective enforcement laid out within the scope of the settlement. 
Basically, it seems that Microsoft is free to break the rules with 
nothing but another long court case as a possible repercussion. All 
the while, Microsoft is free to continue eroding the competition 
until it is next to impossible to revive.
    In addition, the main way that Microsoft has established and 
maintained its monopoly is by creating an Applications Barrier to 
Entry. The sections of the settlement do little to prevent Microsoft 
from continuing this behavior. The key area for this would be to 
establish that Microsoft not only open its API layer, but also any 
data formats that it develops. In this way, they cannot prevent 
rival applications from developing software that is compatible with 
their system or their applications.
    Thank you for your attention.
    ``...if you drink much from a bottle marked 
``poison,'' it is almost certain to disagree with you, 
sooner or later.''-Lewis Carroll
    Joe Sislow
    [email protected]



MTC-00016830

From: Kevin O'Mahoney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To Whom It May Concern;
    I have been outraged at the seemingly weak willed and weak 
minded actions my United States Government Justice Department is 
taking in the Microsoft antitrust actions. I have personally worked 
for companies and been exposed to Microsoft both on the business 
realm and with product related issues as a developer and as a user. 
I have worked for start-up companies which were damaged by 
Microsoft's business actions. And now I see my Government throwing 
in the towel after my fighter has scored a major blow to the 
opponent.
    The current proposed settlement to the Microsoft Antitrust case 
is a sham. It is amazing that my government would even consider this 
as a just result.
    As an example, the consideration that the implied enforcement of 
this settlement will be overseen and ensured by a Microsoft employee 
is ludicrous. This is equivalent to catching a fox eating a chicken 
in your hen house and then leaving the fox's little brother to 
insure it does not happen again, WHILE LETTING THE OFFENDING FOX 
STAY IN THE HEN HOUSE.
    What are you thinking at the Justice Department? Have you all 
given up? Have you sold out? If so then save us taxpayers a lot of 
money, resign from your posts and go home. The vacuum you leave will 
be filled, hopefully with someone more interested in working for the 
good of the citizens.

[[Page 26318]]

    Kevin O'Mahoney.
    919 Moreno Avenue
    Palo Alto, CA 94303



MTC-00016831

From: Eric Zander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am a grad student studying for my MBA and am also quite geeky 
- i.e. I live and breath computers. I also think settling with 
Microsoft in the fashion you have proposed is a really, really bad 
idea.
    Microsoft should be forced to either:
    1) Be broken into seperate companies or,
    2) Be forced to open source their operating system under the 
GPL.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter,
    Eric Zander
    Running to him was real. It was all joy and woe, hard as 
diamond; it made him weary beyond comprehension. But it also made 
him free.
    John L. Parker, Jr.



MTC-00016832

From: Tetrick, Scott
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my view, the remedies proposed for Microsoft are wholly 
invalid. The proposal do nothing to punish past behavior, and little 
to deter future transgressions. In order to remedy the situation, 
Microsoft should be required to:
    *release publically all APIs, file formats, and compliance tests 
of the same, without compensation. The public release of information 
must be prior to the release of a product using those APIs and 
formats.
    *eliminate bundling of features into the OS. All incremental 
features must be removable and replace-able, both by OEMs and users.
    *eliminate OEM licenses that require purchase of Windows with 
each computer, even if this is eventually deleted.
    *eliminate EULAs, retroactively, for all Microsoft products. 
This will allow Microsoft to benefit from its monopoly status only 
if it provides quality and service. Failure to provide such service 
by a monopoly should be punishable.
    Respectfully submitted
    R. Scott Tetrick



MTC-00016833

From: Paul Pelzl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am an electrical engineering graduate student who has logged 
many hours both using and programming computers. I have used 
Microsoft operating systems as well as several Open Source operating 
systems, and thus am intimately aware of the difficulties associated 
with making a transition away from Microsoft software. I feel 
strongly that the proposed Microsoft settlement will do little to 
repair the damage of past monopolistic practices, or to prevent 
future antitrust law violations.
    I see many problems with the proposed settlement, but I will 
bring up just one important issue here. Microsoft Office file 
formats have become the industry standard. Consequently, it is 
impossible to correspond with many businesses without the use of MS 
Word and MS Excel files. I believe that a fair settlement must 
require Microsoft to open up the specifications for these file 
formats (both present and future versions), so that competing 
software products can interact with these files. Without this 
additional action, I see little hope for fair competition in the 
office software market.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Pelzl
    1733 Broadview Ln. #405
    Ann Arbor, MI 48105
    Paul J. Pelzl
    Office Hours (EECS 2336)
    EECS 215 GSI M 5:00-7:00
    
    Tu 5:30-6:30
    Mailbox: EECS 3411



MTC-00016834

From: Ben Goren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to oppose the proposed final judgement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case.
    This proposal is, at its heart, in no way significantly 
different from the previous judgement against Microsoft which was 
all but ignored. A slap ont the wrist means nothing to Microsoft; 
stern admonitions they blithely ignore.
    Far more appropriate would be forcing Microsoft to fully 
disclose, royalty free to the entire world, all information 
necessary to create products that can read and interpret all 
Microsoft file formats and communications protocols. That way, 
anybody would be fully capable of competing with Microsoft on a 
level playing field. As it stands, Microsoft uses its monopoly power 
to prevent any meaningful interoperation with its products. 
Potential competitors can't even get started.
    If you should wish to discuss this matter further, please feel 
free to contact me via email; telephone at +1 (480) 966 9472; or 
postal mail at Post Office Box 964, Tempe, Arizona 85280-0964.
    Sincerely,
    b&
    Ben Goren
    mailto:[email protected]
    http://www.trumpetpower.com/
    icbm:33o25'37``N-111o57'32''W



MTC-00016835

From: Kenneth Kang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the proposed settlement does not protect consumers and 
competing companies from newer technologies like media, digital 
rights management, instant messaging. While Microsoft does not yet 
have monopolies in these areas, I believe that the agreement does 
not prevent them from leveraging their monopoly into these 
industries.
    Kenneth S. Kang
    P. O. Box 11741
    Stanford, CA 94309
    (650) 497-6387
    Castano 308



MTC-00016836

From: David Muir Sharnoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement because I do not think 
it will change Microsoft's behavior.
    I belive Microsoft's behavior needs to be changed for a whole 
bunch of reasons that all stem from one basic truth: Microsoft does 
not play fair. The Findings of Fact are true. Microsoft has 
enourmous natural advantages because of its resources, and market 
position. Dispite these advantages, they feel that the must leverage 
their monopoly position in illegal ways to gain further advantage.
    The proposed settlement does not make the expected costs of 
continuing to their behavior high enough for the cost-benifit 
calculations to shift their point-of-view to a new position where 
they would not try to get illegal leverage from their monopoly 
position. It doesn't come close because there is no stick. There are 
no big fines and there is no breackup. There isn't anything that 
will make them scared.
    Why do I care?
    I care because Microsoft technology is bad. Microsoft does well 
in terms of integration-making many things work 
together-but it does badly in terms of reliability; 
flexibility; scalability; and security. This last point is 
particularly important in this post-911 world we live in. The 
Internet infrastructure that so much of our economy depends on is 
vulnerable to many kinds of denial- of-service attacks. Most of 
these vulnerabilities exist because of one thing: secuirty problems 
with Microsoft products.
    The security problems with Microsoft products do would not be a 
big deal if there weren't so many computers running Microsoft 
products. The infrastructure itself is mostly non-Microsoft but 
because there are so many systems that can be used to attack from at 
once (compromised Microsoft systems) the sheer volume of attack can 
overwhelmn any part of the Internet.
    I avoid using and buying Microsoft products as much as possible. 
I cannot avoid them altogether because people I interact with create 
documents that cannot be viewed without using Microsoft products. 
This is very much unlike the rest of the software that I use. The 
rest of the software that I use attempts to use standards so 
different programs can still access the same content.
    Microsoft may employ many programmers but Microsoft is not a 
technology company. Microsoft's primary expertise is in marketing. 
Much of their technology is purchased. In their recent PR work, 
Microsoft has asked for the ``freedom to innovate''. The 
freedom to innovate that they are asking for is the freedom to 
innovate in marketing. Technology they can just buy, but a marketing 
using unfair tactics requires a lot of freedom.
    Who am I?
    I am a computer programmer; the owner of a Internet Service 
Provider; and the CTO of

[[Page 26319]]

an Internet startup that is attempting to diintermidiate the 
academic publishing process and thus make academic journals more 
timely and more affordable.
    Thank you,
    David Sharnoff



MTC-00016837

From: Christophe de Dinechin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software engineer with over 15 years'' experience, I 
would like to comment regarding the Proposed Final Judgment in 
United States v. Microsoft.
    The proposed remedies fail to restore a competitive environment: 
their weakness actually encourages Microsoft to continue with the 
anti-competitive practices which have successfully killed or harmed 
competitive products and companies such as Apple (QuickTime), Be 
(BeOS), Digital Research (DR-DOS), Geoworks (Ensemble), IBM (OS/2), 
Netscape (Communicator), Novell (Netware), and many others. All of 
these products were vastly superior to what Microsoft could offer at 
the time, and some of them had the backing of large and competent 
organizations. In all cases, ``dirty tactics'' from 
Microsoft have been demonstrated and documented widely.
    To help consumers, a settlement must restore competition in such 
a way that the tactics applied by Microsoft against the products 
cited above would no longer be possible. The current settlement 
fails by that measure. As such, I consider it insufficient. I 
therefore ask you to reconsider the settlement and to take the time 
to ensure that it is effective.
    Regards,
    Christophe de Dinechin



MTC-00016838

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement with Microsoft is bad. The people 
of the United States will not stand for big business trampling the 
rights of others. I have a feeling you will be very suprised when 
Americans come together as one to correct this wrong. Please be 
careful with your decision as it not only affects us but our 
children.



MTC-00016839

From: Jeremiah Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hash: SHA1
    Dear Sir
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``* * * (c) 
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
* * *''
    This affects my job and my hobby. I use Open Source software as 
a major facet of my work. Microsoft holds all the keys to software 
interoperating with their software, this makes things very very 
difficult for those of us who need to write custom solutions to 
complex problems.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremiah Stanley
    Arvada, CO



MTC-00016840

From: Yuriko Horvath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I disagree with the proposed Microsoft's antitrust settlement.
    By not correcting Microsoft's past and current actions you are 
allowing them to continue in the future with the safty net of the 
court's present decision.
    Sincerely,
    yuriko horvath



MTC-00016841

From: Ross Beyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'm writing to express my opinion of the Proposed Final 
judgement in the United States v. Microsoft case. I feel that the 
Proposed Final Judgement is too narrow, if not downright misleading, 
in it's definitions. An example is the way that it requires 
Microsoft to release API documentation, but competitors that might 
wish to make their operating systems compatible with Windows are 
prohibited from doing so, making the release of the API 
documentation an empty gesture. This is just one of the many 
problems with the Proposed Final Judgement, which I believe are 
proof that the Proposed Final Judgement does not satisfy the Court 
of Appeals'' Mandate. As such, I feel that the Proposed Final 
Judgement is not strong enough and should be reconsidered.
    Ross Beyer
    Tucson, AZ



MTC-00016842

From: Eric Eslinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft 
Antitrust case will do very little to benefit the people of the 
United States. The PFJ is essentially a wrist slap that allows 
Microsoft to continue its predatory business practices.
    I feel that the crux of the matter is that third party 
developers of competing software and ``middleware'' are 
not protected at all by the PFJ. The definition of API and 
Middleware are overly narrow, and the actual disclosure is not 
sufficient.
    Microsoft did a Bad Thing, and was found to be in violation of 
Antitrust laws. The punishment should be uncomfortable for them. 
Forcing them to completely open and disclose all of their operating 
system and application APIs would foster much healthier competition. 
In this market, where Microsoft tends to view bugs and security 
flaws as publicity problems rather than development problems, this 
kind of openness and the plugability it would foster would 
tremendously benefit not only the myriad smaller businesses that 
would better be able to compete; it would also benefit the end users 
of Microsoft software.
    This is a single point about the PFJ that I feel is problematic. 
I do have other problems with the PFJ, and if you are interested in 
hearing more, feel free to contact me at any time.
    Eric Eslinger,
    Oakland CA
    I can see a dream in your dance. I can see tomorrow in your 
dance! We can call it our hope!



MTC-00016843

From: Jason Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an active member of the computer science industry and 
academia, the Proposed Final Judgement is truly disturbing, and 
seems to offer no real punishment for a company that *has been found 
guilty*. The restrictions are vague, and the limitations are minimal 
(and easily worked around). Please see Dan Kegel's excellent 
synopsis of comments here . Thank you for your time, and please bolster our 
faith in our judicial system by rejecting this PFJ in favor of one 
that actually punishes the guilty.
    Jason McColm Smith
    PhD Candidate
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



MTC-00016844

From: Pear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Justices,
    Please support the proposed Microsoft Federal Antitrust 
Settlement as it mitigates the issues that led to this suit, and 
allows Microsoft to focus on innovation and not litigation. 
Providing good relations and flexibility with computer makers, 
uniform pricing, and disclosure of Windows? interface will allow the 
necessary competition so that a host of products can be unveiled for 
the benefit of all consumers. The Three-Person Technical Committee 
will provide the crucial oversight for compliance more effectively 
than any judicial reorganization.
    Using Californian's money to pay for continuing a costly trial 
is not prudent at this juncture. Please finalize the Microsoft 
Settlement so that all concerned parties can move forward with the 
crucial economic issues.
    Thank you.
    Matt Pear
    Mountain View City Council Member and Businessman



MTC-00016845

From: Jeff Bitgood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26320]]

    Although these aren't my own words, they sum up my feelings on 
the settlement so well that I'd like to repeat them here:
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Bitgood



MTC-00016846

From: Andy Poggio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement currently proposed in the Microsoft case does not 
restore competition in the computer industry, will not prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its illegal practices, and is not in the 
public interest. It should be rejected and replaced with a plan that 
will accomplish these objectives.
    One such plan is the following: divide Microsoft into six 
companies. Three of the companies have full rights to Microsoft's 
operating system intellectual property and three of the companies 
have full rights to Microsoft's application intellectual property. 
The three operating system companies will have no choice but to 
compete with each other on price, capabilities, and innovation; 
similarly, the three application companies will have to compete. 
None will have a monopoly in their respective areas.
    This plan is no more radical than the ATT breakup and such a 
plan is the only solution to the current situation with Microsoft.
    Andy Poggio
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016847

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am NOT SATISFIED with the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I will simply provide you with a link to an essay 
written which can describe the problems identified with the proposed 
settlement much more thoroughly and eloquently than I could, but are 
in perfect alignment with my own thoughts on the subject matter at 
hand. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    As stated in the essay, the problems are as follows:
    ``1. The PFJ (proposed final judgment) doesn't take into 
account Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
    2. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    3. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    4. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    5. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs``-Dan Kegel
    Sincerely,
    Steven Stremciuc
    19728 N. 79th Ave
    Glendale, Az 85308
    623.572.8422



MTC-00016848

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ-ers,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I would suggest that the officers of Microsoft be 
forced to personally spend time in community-improvement programs, 
just like other criminals do. I further suggest that the time spent 
be commensurate with the scope of the crimes committed. To my mind, 
this implies that Bill Gates would spend the rest of his life 
servicing recalcitrant Windows computers at community shelters 
around the country (and perhaps at the DOJ).
    Sincerely,
    John Koger



MTC-00016849

From: Dan Zubairi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. As an experienced technical consultant, I 
would like to point out the following reasons why I do NOT support 
the proposed settlement:
    I. The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems
    A) Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    II. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions 
and Provisions
    A) The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    B) The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    C) The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET, 
and subsequent similar products with competing middleware.
    D) The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    E) The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    F) The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    G) The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    H) The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents or other similar 
applications.
    I) The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users and non-Microsoft developers, and opens the doors to 
potential future lawsuits against Microsoft competitors.
    III. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    A) Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    B) Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    C) Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux!
    (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    IV. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    A) Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems. Modified

[[Page 26321]]

implementations of Java and the Kerberos authentication protocol 
immediately come to mind.
    V. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    A) The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    B) The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs- including regional ``white box'' OEMs which 
are historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    C) The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    VI. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Thank you for your time.
    Daniel F. Zubairi
    President and Chief Architect
    SydanTech LLC
    7272 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 300
    Bethesda, MD 20814
    301-530-8590



MTC-00016850

From: Michael Arick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft Settlement and pursuant 
to the Tunney Act, I am declaring my feelings now. When I have more 
time, I will send further e-mails detailing why I feel the 
settlement is so horrible, but for now, let's just leave it as that 
I am opposed to it.
    Sincerely yours,
    Michael Arick



MTC-00016851

From: Richard Sorak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello microsoft,
    I think that the Justice dept's handling of the MS case borders 
on incompetence. To have only prosecuted MS on the Browser issue is 
overlooking a whole host of other violations that MS has committed 
over the years. MS's treatment of OEM computer manufacturers by 
requiring them to buy a copy of Windows for every PC they sold 
regardless of wether the purchaser wanted it or not is certainly 
criminal.
    I think that the proposed settlement is entirely inadequate and 
toothless. MS needs to be punished in some meaningful significant 
way and not let off with a slap on the wrist.
    Take care,
    Richard Sorak
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00016852

From: Paul Lindner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does not provide an adequate 
remedy for Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior and flagrant 
violation of court orders.
    The current settlement provides too many loopholes and will 
quickly gather dust like the other consent decrees issued in the 
past. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this 
settlement and seek stronger action against Microsoft.
    Paul Lindner [email protected]



MTC-00016853

From: jaf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft%20Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am against the currently proposed settlement with 
Microsoft-it has no ``teeth'' and will not keep 
MIcrosoft from repeating their past abuses (which I believe was the 
whole point of the anti-trust proceedings). At the very least, it 
should be modified so that Microsoft's future actions will be 
subject to strict oversight and timely control should they abuse 
their monopoly again. Better still, the settlement should promote 
conditions that reduce the nation's dependence on Microsoft, by 
promoting interoperability and open standards.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jeremy Friesner
    339 South Catalina Ave #214
    Pasadena, CA 91106
    [email protected]



MTC-00016854

From: Josh Oakes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern-
    I would like to express my dis-satisfaction with the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. In addition to having a number of problems 
discussed at length in editorials, and the internet (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), I don't believe that the 
settlement will work to remedy Microsoft's behavior. Their monopoly 
power has a stranglehold on the industry and will continue to 
expanding into other areas, as it is even now as they leverage their 
weight to dominate other industries and markets. Their monopoly on 
the desktop OS allows them to leverage that influence to not only 
extend that monopoly, but to move their technologies into other 
industries, which they are doing with their X-box, Windows Media 
Player, their Desktop Applications, and the .Net strategy- all 
to the detriment of users and competitors, giving Microsoft the 
upper hand.
    Joshua Oakes
    915 Pacific Apt B
    Morro Bay, Ca 93442



MTC-00016855

From: Betsy Byrd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement (PS) is flawed. Because of many 
different legal loopholes in the PS, Microsoft will be able to find 
ways to easily exploit their customers and OEMs to their advantage. 
Microsoft has already extended, or tried to extend, their monopoly 
since the start of the trial, such as:
    * Microsoft .NET and MS's plans to force everybody to sign for a 
MS Passport (which has already been proven to be a very insecure 
system)
    * The failed attempt to turn an educational lawsuit into a way 
to inject their software into yet another market
    * Imposing highly-restrictive EULAs and license agreements in XP 
to try to milk as much money as possible from the end user and 
businesses, which has already forced other governments (such as the 
UK and China) to consider other options besides MS software
    * Using PR stunts to hide the fact that security was never a 
major concern of any of their products, and never will be (even 
though recent developments in Windows XP and Internet Explorer have 
proven this)
    * Starting petty lawsuits to snuff out competition, in the hopes 
of running them out of money (such as the recent Lindows lawsuit)
    * Rigging web polls and writing fake letters (from people 
already long dead and buried) to influence business and DoJ 
decisions
    The government's intentions in the PS are in good faith, but the 
language puts too much faith in MS's interpretation of it. Dan Kegel 
has a great analysis of the flaws found in the PS here: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html In short, I feel that it's the 
DoJ's duty to revamped the PS and/or return to the drawing board, as 
its current revision is not enough to stop Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices.
    Betsy Byrd
    Director of Member Relations
    Kentucky Restaurant Association



MTC-00016856

From: Brian Street
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I stand against the proposed settlement regarding the Microsoft 
case. It does not punish the guilty (the tax write offs will exceed 
their actual cost of delivering software).
    It does not provide relief to those they damaged with their 
practices.
    Brian C. Street
    8965 Cloverleaf Cir.
    Parker, CO 80134



MTC-00016857

From: Jason Nyberg
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement proposed by the US DOJ and nine 
settling states for several reasons:
    A) It lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. Any violation of 
the settlement by Microsoft would be met with swift... nothing. Only 
after a long delay and more court time could any violation be 
addressed. The three-person oversight committee is effectively 
gagged, disallowing public

[[Page 26322]]

knowledge of potential Microsoft wrongdoings.
    B) File formats for various Microsoft applications remain 
secret, disallowing effective interoperability for potential 
competing software.
    C) Microsoft can retaliate against OEMs that provide systems 
that have been configured with only a non-Microsoft operating 
system.
    D) The settlement contains numerous loopholes that could allow 
Microsoft to effectively bypass prohibitions on some practices that 
are intended to be eliminated by the terms of the settlement.
    E) The settlement does nothing to deny Microsoft the fruits of 
the abuse of its monopoly position. Microsoft is a convicted 
monopolist. The 1995 consent decree against Microsoft was 
ineffective due to its ineffective enforcement mechanisms, and 
Microsoft's blatent disregard for its terms. Microsoft has shown 
that it can, and will, protect its monopoly by stretching and 
breaking the law.
    Jason Nyberg (My views do not necessarily represent the views of 
my employer.)
    8 Plasic Rd.
    Merrimack NH 03054
    [email protected]



MTC-00016858

From: Brian L. Feathers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the legal representatives for the United States public, I 
would like to have it publicly noted that I am personally 
dissatisfied with the proposed settlements issued for the case of 
Microsoft(TM) vs. the United States. The proposals issued would not 
only allow Microsoft(TM) to continue its current practices, but 
would also allow further ``misguided'' interpretations of 
the restrictions that result in further exploitations by the 
Microsoft(TM) Corporation. As such, the proposed penalties do not 
appear to coincide with the best interests of the American public. I 
would like to thank you in advance for considering my opinion in 
this matter.
    Respectfully,
    Brian L. Feathers



MTC-00016859

From: Greg Recine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I disagree with the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft. The 
settlement does not do enough to address the unfair business 
practices engaged in my Microsoft, an as a result, is bad for the 
computer community (manufacturers, programmers, users, etc.) in 
general.
    Thank you for your time.
    Gregory Recine
    Lyndhurst, NJ
    [email protected]



MTC-00016860

From: Steve Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the porposed Microsoft Anti-trust settlement:
    This settlement is a joke. It does nothing to stop their 
behavior. The Justice Dept. needs to go for a punishment that is a 
real punishment, and not a slap on the wrist.
    Such as:
    a.. Break them up
    b.. force them to Open Source their code
    c.. force them to document ALL Windows API's
    d.. fine them and donate then money to Open Source projects
    Please do not let them off so lightly. They have cost this 
country billions with their bug-infested, virus-friendly shoddy 
software.
    Thank you
    Steve Cox
    241 West Summer Street
    Greeneville, TN 37743



MTC-00016861

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Opposed
    To whom it may concern:
    I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement as I don't feel that it 
addresses the problem of Microsoft being a monopoly. If they are 
allowed to provide their software to the schools as part of the 
settlement, it only furthers their strangle hold on the market.
    I support Redhat's offer to provide the software and have 
Microsoft provide the hardware.
    Any settlement should seperate the offering of the operating 
system from the applications. All of the API's to in the operating 
system should be public knowledge, at the same time that they are 
available to the Microsoft application people. Vendors should not be 
required to bundle any software with the operating system.
    Thanks you,
    John Hosage



MTC-00016862

From: Ford Prefect
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgment allows many exclusionary practices 
to continue, and does not take any direct measures to reduce the 
Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to the market.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a 
Technical Committee with investigative powers, but appears to leave 
all actual enforcement to the legal system.
    The definitions of various terms in Part VI of the PFJ differ 
from the definitions in the Findings of Fact and in common usage, 
apparantly to Microsoft's benefit.
    For these and many other reasons, the judgement appears slanted 
sharply in Microsoft's favor, and is an unacceptable remedy to the 
company's past abuses. In fact, the computing industry as a whole is 
rallying against this proposed judgement, just take a look at the 
Computer & Communicaions Industry Assoc. website: http://
www.ccianet.org/papers/ms/sellout.php3
    The PFJ suffers from a serious problem of ineffectiveness. And 
even its limited provisions (API disclosure, icon removal, etc.) 
rely exclusively on OEMs to provide a competitive alternative to 
Windows.
    gene
    Gene Merrill
    Portland, OR
    503.450.5722



MTC-00016863

From: Aubrey Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Microsoft is a very important company and a lot of other 
companies rely on them. They definitely should not be able to stifle 
business, but realize a lot of businesses count on Microsoft to be 
able to do their own business. Hopefully there is a middle of the 
road that keeps Microsoft doing what they do good and stops them 
from what they do bad. Thank you for your valuable time,
    Aubrey S. Alexander
    Orr's Island, Maine 04066



MTC-00016864

From: Randy Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't think the proposed microsoft settlement will accomplish 
anything towards curbing Microsoft's antitrust powers.



MTC-00016865

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I've been a computing professional for over 15 years. It is my 
considered opinion that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is 
inadequate. It will not restore competition to the market, nor will 
it curb Microsoft's agressive tendencies.
    Kind regards,
    Mark Bisaha



MTC-00016866

From: Gray, Tim
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am against the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does not fully 
address the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit 
their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past antitrust 
activities.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or address their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses.

[[Page 26323]]

This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a 
person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from 
those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake many of the states have offered a revised 
settlement that addresses many of the problems in this original 
settlement and therefore this settlement must be rejected.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy D. Gray
    3044 Westland Drive
    Rosevelt Park, MI 49441



MTC-00016867

From: John Kindt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Doj,
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is flawed in many ways. I 
find that microsoft routinely removes compatibility with other 
companies'' software from theirs, making it nearly impossible 
to use files and programs from other systems. Microsoft should be 
split into an operating systems company and a software company.
    John Kindt
    Systems
    The Tennessean
    1100 Broadway
    Nashville, TN 37203
    615-664-2187
    [email protected]
    www.tennessean.com



MTC-00016868

From: mike B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a System Administrator in California. I work on Windows and 
Solaris servers.
    It is my opinion that the antitrust settlement has some fine 
points in it but does not provide for adequate regulation or 
penalties for violations. This settlement will NOT prevent Microsoft 
from further participating in anti-competitive actions. This 
settlement does NOT provide for adequate punishments for past anti-
competitive actions.
    Michael Billups
    System Administrator
    Agoura Hills Ca



MTC-00016869

From: Eric Gold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a political cop-out. I am against it.
    Eric Gold MD
    Albuquerque, NM
    University of New Mexico



MTC-00016870

From: Andrew Bond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement sucks!
    Andrew H. Bond
    [email protected]
    OMU
    p: 707-285-5843
    cisco Systems, Inc.
    f: 707-285-5340



MTC-00016871

From: Stephen Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    My name is Stephen Bishop, and I am a senior in Computer 
Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. I am writing to express 
my dissatisfaction with the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I hope to 
point out the problems I see in this proposed settlement, and offer 
my own thoughts as to a possible satisfactory resolution.

(Problem 1) Availabilty of alternative OS

    I am currently in the market for a new laptop computer, based on 
the x86 architecture. I use the GNU/Linux operating system almost 
exlcusively. Also, because of my concerns about Windows XP's Product 
Activation feature, I refuse to use it. However, there are no 
vendors in the US that offer laptop to non-corporate customers 
without a Windows OS. And it only 1 vendor (IBM) will allow 
individual sales of anything other than Windows XP. So essentially, 
I am being forced to pay for a Microsoft product I will never use.
    Since the proposed remedy must make requirements upon Microsoft, 
not independent OEMs, I can see only one satisfactory solution: 
Microsoft must be willing (and provide a convinient means) to accept 
returns-for-refund of unused software, particulary when the user 
will not accept the license terms or refuses to ``active'' 
their product. Currently, attempts to return unused software are 
either redirected to the OEM, or threatened with software license 
audits.

(Problem 2) Corporate Licensing

    Microsoft Licensing version 6.0 has caused a great deal of 
concern among corporate clients (http://www.cio.com/archive/011502/
meter-content.html). A satisfactory rememdy must require 
Microsoft to offer a variety of license choices to corporate 
customers, including ones that allow the customer to set the upgrade 
pace. Remedies that allow Microsoft to require that customers always 
adopt the newest software version are completely unacceptable.
    Possible Solution:
    I am not a lawyer, simply an engineer, so this may not be 
feasible. Microsoft was granted a copyright for their products 
``to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.'' It 
could be argued that by using their copyrights in an illegal manner 
(maintence and extenstion of a monopoly), that Microsoft's patents 
are no longer enforceable. This punishment could be applied only to 
those software products which Microsoft had used in an illegal 
fashion. Following this approach would level the playing field for 
competitors, and require no long-term oversight by the government. 
Additional steps could be proposed (such as the open release of 
future Windows APIs), but I will reserve comment on them. I am 
certain that case law exists to support the revocation of copyrights 
for their use in illegal acts, so it might not be necessary to argue 
the case on constitutional grounds.
    I hope you will consider my comments, and revise the proposed 
remedy to address the issues I have raised. I will be available at 
this email address, and would be very willing to further discuss the 
proposed settlement.
    Regards,
    -Stephen Bishop



MTC-00016872

From: Ben Eavey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My response: NO.
    I'm adding my voice to the thousands of people who KNOW that the 
proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. The settlement does NOT 
prohibit Microsoft from continuing its anti-competitive practices, 
and in fact it may actually HELP them to further dominate and 
control the industry, to the detriment of the general public.
    The settlement does not punish Microsoft in any way for past 
offenses! It simply attempts to prohibit them from abusing their 
monopoly further in the future. The problem is that the language of 
the settlement doesn't actually prohibit them from doing anything! 
With a few simple changes to their licensing policies, and a few 
minor adjustments to their operating system, they will easily 
outmaneuver anything laid out here.
    How can a company commit illegal acts, benefit greatly both 
financially and in market-share, and then not be punished for those 
actions? Break the law, and then be told, ``well, just don't do 
it again?'' Ridiculous.
    It appears that the court is simply agreeing to a settlement to 
make the whole thing go away. The settlement is unfair, unjust, and 
does not accomplish ANYTHING as far as controlling an anti-
competitive, illegal monopoly. A settlement that is unjust is simply 
compounding the wrong that brought Microsoft here in the first 
place.
    I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the 
American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Sincerely,
    Benjamin Eavey
    Kentwood, MI



MTC-00016873

From: Jason Duvel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the

[[Page 26324]]

American economy, and not adequate given the findings of fact in the 
trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Thank you for your time, and please give this issue the time and 
thought it requires beyond ``we must settle soon.'' As the 
clich goes-``haste makes waste'' and it'd be a waste 
of the taxpayers dollars. Thanks.
    Jason Duvel
    13490 County Rd 7160
    Rolla, Mo. 65401
    [email protected] or [email protected]



MTC-00016874

From: Gregory A. Kirkendall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Gregory Kirkendall



MTC-00016875

From: Jon Abbey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a computer professional who has worked in the industry for 
a decade, and who has closely observed Microsoft's practices in the 
industry since the early 1980's. I am writing to request that the 
settlement proposed by the DOJ, Microsoft, and the consenting states 
be rejected as inadequate to the damage done by Microsoft. Microsoft 
has been so successful in driving out all competition from the 
market through the power of their control over the PC platform that 
in many cases the only viable remaining sources of competing 
innovation has come from so-called free software. Free software, or 
Open Source, refers to software products like Linux or Apache or 
Mozilla, or FreeBSD, in which a global community of developers 
contribute their time and energy to sustaining software projects as 
a resource to the public.
    It is unacceptable, therefore, that the proposed settlement 
stipulates that Microsoft be obliged to share details of their 
secret data formats and networking protocols only to those 
commercial interests that Microsoft deems worthy to receive that 
information. Such language in the proposed settlement is designed 
entirely to shield Microsoft from the volunteer workers who can not 
be bought or put out of business by Microsoft's huge cash reserves 
and industry leverage.
    It is likewise unacceptable that Microsoft be given the ability 
to withhold any protocol information that might be related to their 
security mechanisms. It is, of course, true that information that 
could lead to the compromise of access controls on computer systems 
running Microsoft software would be damaging to Microsoft and the 
public. It is not true, however, that any revelation of protocols 
will have this result. Every web browser that supports encrypted 
communication with a web server does so through an open, industry 
standard protocol known as TLS. TLS is an extraordinarily well 
documented standard, and there are scores of individual programs on 
many different computer and operating systems that work with TLS. 
This does not in any way negatively impact the security of the TLS 
protocol. A security protocol is not secure because it is secret, it 
is secure because the mathematics of the system make it vastly 
impractical that anyone could muster enough computer power to 
decrypt a given communications stream.
    Microsoft should be required to document their networking 
protocols in full, so that others, both commercial interests and 
volunteer developers, can create products to fully interoperate in a 
compatible fashion with Microsoft systems.
    At the very least, independent technical experts not under 
Microsoft's pay or control should be consulted so that these two 
loopholes in the proposed settlement may be properly closed.
    Thank you,
    Jonathan Abbey
    -Jonathan 
[email protected], TX



MTC-00016877

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    The settlement is flawed. It has too many loopholes and is 
overall too lax. Microsoft is the kind of company that will take 
advantage of that. I fully agree with Dan Kegel's analysis at http:/
/www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Thank you,



MTC-00016878

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been using computers for about 16 years now, having 
started on the Commodore line of computers. I have actively watched 
the computer industry over the years and have seen Microsoft turn 
into the most predatory and dominant company in the computer 
industry. I have read the proposed settlement and it does nothing to 
prevent their predatory and illegal actions nor to penalize them for 
illegal actions past. I strongly urge that this proposal be rejected 
and tougher restrictions and penalities for past illegal activies be 
drafted into a new agreement. Again, I am against this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Rati
    2540 Crooked Creek Rd, Apt 202
    Schaumburg, IL. 60173



MTC-00016879

From: Doug Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to comment on the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I 
am a software developer and manager. I am writing to say the 
judgment against Microsoft needs to be strictly enforced, and to 
punish the company for their past monopolistic acts.
    The proposed final judgment allows Microsoft to continue to keep 
competing operating systems from being sold by OEMs. The specific 
practice of modifying the computers boot sector when installing all 
Microsoft operating system makes building a dual boot system very 
difficult. The Microsoft product will hide the location of other 
operating systems, like Linux, when the Microsoft operating system 
is installed.
    This is the equivalent of saying, if you use our product, you 
can use no other. Please be fair and rule for true competition in 
the future.
    Thanks,
    Doug Gibbs
    SpectraLink



MTC-00016880

From: Kimura Kalidor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First I'd like to state who I am. My name is Krisztian Szabo, a 
resident of Lewis Center, Ohio. I am not a Microsoft zealot, if 
anything I advocate open source such as linux. My server infact runs 
linux as a safegaurd for the

[[Page 26325]]

web services and against microsoft virii. For the past four years I 
have been working at General Electric Lighting and General Electric 
Superabraisives as a Network Specilist and assistant to the previous 
CIO.
    I write here in responce of this website : http://
www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunney.html and many like it produced by 
Linux zealots, who, sad to say see the entire case as an episode of 
Star Wars rather then cold hard facts. Microsoft is not a big 
ruthless empire, it is a business that makes decent to semi-decent 
software, but more then this, it has been for the past 20-25 
years a standard for the computer industry. Already the 
ramifications of this trial have been felt. Computer manufacturers 
have dropped the ``Made for Windows XXXX'' logo, and 
hardware has started becoming incompatible and expensive as it was 
in the seventies and even in the early eighties.
    Many believe Microsoft is infringing on the rights of other 
companies by bundling their software with windows. First a majority 
of the companies that have files complaints make substandard 
software, and second most of them offer it for free. Case and point 
is Netscape. I have not know anyone who was only allowed to buy a 
copy of Netscape and didn't download it claiming they were an 
educational institution. However many people have expressed these 
veiws, our senators and representatives, didn't even bother to 
respond or listen. I am sorry to say even Sen. Voinavich whom I have 
known since I was in highschool turned a deaf ear.
    While my fath in US judicial system had been very weak, 
especially with the decision of the Microsoft Case, it should have 
been dismissed, or at least heard by someone who understands modern 
day technology, of which there is no one presently in the supreme 
court. I still implore you to use the current settlement. It is the 
best way of keeping the computer industry from stagnating, it may 
infact fix the damage done to the economy. In addition it keeps the 
standards that most computers are built on, and reinforces the idea 
that Microsoft isn't the only company, the standards it has set on 
the hardware industry should not be thrown out.
    Thank you very much for your time,
    Krisztian Szabo
    Handle: Kimura Kalidor
    Address: 2770 Big Sur Drive
    Lewis Center Ohio 43035



MTC-00016881

From: Randy Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, carefully review this final judgement against Microsoft. 
I believe the wording of the document leaves sufficient loop holes 
and gray areas that it would allow Microsoft to continue its 
practices of market domination that have cost so many other 
companies their solvency.
    I am a computer professional with over 20 years experience in 
the field of Information Technology. I believe that if the same 
barriers to the space program existed as those Microsoft has imposed 
upon I.T., we never would have learned to fly, much less put a man 
on the moon.
    Randy Jenkins
    St. Peters, MO



MTC-00016882

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is an extraordinarily bad 
idea. Microsoft has reached a very dominant and monopolistic 
position in the computer software field and, much like the old Bell 
system, must be controlled somehow. They are choking the life out of 
computer software innovators. Besides this, they use illegal 
business practices to do it. I believe strongly in capitalism, but 
there are certain monopolistic situations where the gorvernment must 
step in and control.
    -Dr Steve Otto



MTC-00016883

From: Bob Pendleton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I have read the proposed settlement agreement and I see nothing 
in it that will actually reverse Microsoft's predatory actions or 
open the market to non-Microsoft products. I am particularly worried 
about the way they have chosen to allow businesses limited access to 
the actual specifications of Windows. That part of the agreement 
gives a small number of businesses access to the true 
specifications, but it BARS access to the same specifications by 
individuals and groups involved in nonprofit activities.
    I believe that the only correct course of action is to break 
Microsoft up into several different companies and to declare the 
specification of Windows to be an essential facility. Since it is 
unlikely that Microsoft will be broken up then the specification of 
all Windows APIs must be declared an essential facility, fully 
documented and fully disclosed.
    With the specifications posted on a public web site with paper 
copies sent to anyone who requests them. And, Microsoft MUST be 
required to fully publish changes to the APIs at least 6 months in 
advance of the release of any products that use or provide those 
APIs. This would give competitors a chance to take advantage of 
those APIs to compete with Microsoft.
    Bob Pendleton
    2410 Sparrow Drive
    Round Rock, Texas 78681
    Independent developer
    Owner of Gameprogrammer.com



MTC-00016884

From: Swan, Brian
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. After the settlement was 
announced they continued about their old ways.
    Brian R. Swan
    ThruPoint, Inc.



MTC-00016885

From: Robert Burcham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``settlement'' is terrible. MS is a monopoly, has 
been found to have violated federal law, and should be PUNISHED. The 
``settlement'' does not amount to punishment, and in fact 
appears to be more of a business dealing between two partners, 
rather than a resolution to a criminal proceeding.
    It is shameful that this company is allowed to buy it's way out 
of everything. It is shameful that this monopoly has struck a deal 
to advertise its wares in United States Post Office storefronts.
    Robert Burcham
    Kansas City, MO



MTC-00016886

From: james douglass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I agree with Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs. ``We think a 
far better settlement is for Microsoft to give their proposed $1 
billion-in cash-to an independent foundation, which will 
provide our most needy schools with the computer technology of their 
choice,'' Jobs said in the statement. source of quotation : 
http://news.com.com/
2100-1040-276722.html?legacy=cnet&tag=tp-pr
    Sincerely,
    James Douglass, Center Conway, New Hampshire; Concerned Citizen



MTC-00016887

From: Lawrence Gohar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a server engineer, I am constantly faced with the undue 
burden that Microsoft places on my IT department. According to the 
terms of their varied licensing agreements, it is difficult, if not 
impossible in some cases, to be able to perform my professional 
duties. Although I am not well versed in law, I would like to point 
out some examples of how their anti-competitive business practices 
hurt the IT industry, and the population at large:
    1) When negotiating with Hardware Vendors, it is often difficult 
to purchase a server or desktop running a competing operating 
system. Although I could purchase, for example, a high end server 
from Sun, in many cases it would make financial sense to purchase a 
less expensive Intel-based machine with an alternative OS 
preinstalled on it, or a ``blank'' machine which I could 
then install upon the OS of my choice. Since

[[Page 26326]]

MS leverages its monopoly power against hardware vendors, I usually 
have to pay for a license of Windows that I will never use.
    2) In cases where it is deemed necessary to utilize a Microsoft 
operating system or product (for example Microsoft Exchange), IT 
professionals, are forced to also use Microsoft Outlook, which 
invariably means that they are also forced to use Microsoft Windows 
if they choose to use the Intel platform.
    3) As a result of Microsoft's lack of attention to the stability 
and security of their products, an inordinate amount of time 
(therfore money) is spent patching and repairing their products to 
minimize downtime and to recover from catastrophic failures, 
viruses, and unauthorized entry into systems that the IT department 
is ultimately responsible for. While constant vigilance is required 
of any IT department regarding the maintenance of any software or 
hardware product, Microsoft's monopoly in this arena allows them the 
lattitude to be negligent without fear of reprisal from their 
customers.
    4) As a result of Microsoft's monopoly, end users cannot easily 
mix and match technologies to suit their particular needs. This is 
especially infuriating when one considers that many people are 
dissatisfied with the quality of their products and services, but 
have no choice but to continue using them, due to the fact that 
their standards prevent people from taking their existing work and 
moving it to another system. Microsoft Office is an excellent 
example of this, where I cannot easily use a Word document with a 
different word processing package, because much of the work I had 
already done would need to be re-created. As a hypothetical 
situation, consider the scenario where Ford or General Motors 
created cars that crashed frequently or were overly easy to steal 
due to design faults; they would suffer because the car buying 
public would simply switch to a competitor. The public would be 
satisfied in this case because their transportation needs would be 
met, without being forced to still contribute to the offending 
company. In other words, if we are dissatisfied with Ford, we could 
buy a GM without having to buy Ford gas, Ford oil, Ford air-
fresheners, etc. Free competition would guarantee that any company 
would ultimately be responsible to ensure that it produces a quality 
product with the satisfaction of the end user in mind.
    5) Upon inspection, the prescribed remdies are too narrow in 
their focus to prevent this sort of behavior in the future. For 
example, many of the remedies are in regard to Microsoft software as 
it is applied to Intel hardware, however it is painfully obvious 
that they have many interests outside of the Intel marketplace, to 
which the remedies would not apply. Microsoft could just as easily 
switch their focus to, let's say, Apple and abandon the Intel 
platform. Because so many people are dependant on their software, 
they would have little choice but to follow them and be subjected to 
the same behavior that they currently employ. Ultimately, anyone who 
chooses to create a competing product revolving around the Intel 
platform would find themselves with very few customers. 
Organizations would find that they now have the added burden of 
throwing out their existing hardware for which they will get no 
return on investment, and be forced to spend additional money to 
switch to Microsoft's hardware vendor of choice. In closing, I 
realize that I'm stating the obvious, which countless others have 
noted before me. However, if my two cents worth can contribute to a 
positive outcome in this matter, I'll sleep better at night knowing 
that I still have freedom of choice.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence Gohar



MTC-00016888

From: Scott Ames
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposal is unsatisfactory. I don't have time to 
point out the problems-I'm quite sure others have already done 
so. I realize it's difficult to do anything more than slap them on 
the wrist and say ``Bad giant megacorporation! 
Bad!''-but something else really needs to be done. Our 
entire economy is going down the toilet. You could probably pay for 
a whole lot of sorely-needed public education out of Microsoft's 
nearly bottomless coffers. Nothing you can do to them will hurt them 
- they're like an oil company, only they don't have a non-renewable 
resource. They have software, which can be copied. Over, and over. 
And sold for $100 a box. Takes a lot of oil to make $100, and look 
at how powerful the oil companies are.
    They won't learn from this. Hit them hard enough that they 
remember that they can't just hide behind a staff of well paid 
lawyers and continue to operate their ``software mafia'' 
without being much more careful.
    (When was the last time they were looked over by the IRS..?)



MTC-00016889

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to make a commentary on the Microsoft settlement as 
is my right under the Tunney Act.
    The current settlement is a bad idea and not nearly hash enough.
    Thank You,
    Kenneth Apa



MTC-00016890

From: R. Jeff Garcia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a very bad idea. I have not recently 
heard of such a bad deal. Your department must hide in shame that 
you would agree to such a lopsided agreement. If you want specific 
points, then here are my objections:
    1) Punishing a monopoly abuser by helping them extend that 
monopoly into schools is dumb. This is hardly a punishment, and that 
is painfully obvious.
    2) Opening up Microsoft to competition is not well addressed by 
this agreement. To really open them up to competition, make them 
publish all of their windows APIs or force them to abide by decided 
upon standards.
    Regards,
    Jeff Garcia



MTC-00016891

From: Gael Marshall Chaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I oppose the Microsoft settlement because it contains no 
enforcement mechanism and it allows Microsoft to continue some of 
its anticompetitive, retaliatory practices. Especially repugnant is 
the way it allows retaliatory practices against small original 
equipment manufacturers. Also, it does not address the problem of 
the anti-competitive way Microsoft sells its Microsoft Office 
software. I especially have a problem with Word. I use Corel 
WordPerfect because it is a much better product, but Microsoft has a 
near monopoly on the market by making Word and Excel documents 
incompatible with other word processor programs. There also may be 
behind-the-scene practices that I'm not aware of, but people in the 
Justice Department ought to be.
    Thank you very much.
    Gael Marshall Chaney
    55 General Longstreet Court
    Martinsville, VA 24112
    [email protected]
    276-638-3542



MTC-00016892

From: Russell Beattie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I work in the IT industry and feel that the proposed Final 
Judgement in US vs. Microsoft does not punish the company enough for 
its monopolistic practices and the remedies proposed do not restore 
competition. It is my opinion that since any punishment given will 
need to be enforced and it has been shown in the past that typical 
methods of enforcement have not worked with Microsoft, that it is 
clear to me that an irrevocable and unavoidable punishment should be 
given: All Windows, middleware and browser source code should be 
released to the public and Microsoft should forfeit all copyrights 
and patents to this code. They can then compete fairly with any 
other company in improving this code in the future.
    Thanks,
    - Russell Beattie
    11116 Vinevale St.
    Garden Grove, CA 92841
    415-820-7700
    [email protected]



MTC-00016893

From: Seon Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement, comments from a US Citizen
    Dear Sirs,
    The current Proposed Final Judgment is insufficient in thwarting 
or preventing the unfettered monopoly practices of Microsoft. In its 
current state it still allows for many exclusionary practices to 
continue.

[[Page 26327]]

- The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
- The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
- The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently 
used by Microsoft
- The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
- The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
- The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Please reconsider the PFJ in its current state.
    Seon Lee



MTC-00016894

From: Randy Overbeck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. One idea that 
stands out in my mind is that there is no proposed monetary amount 
that Microsoft is being fined. They were found guilt of a Monopoly 
in operating systems market and guilty of overpricing their 
operating system which I think should translate into a hefty (it 
must exceed the amount of overpricing X number of units sold as to 
convince them not to continue the practice in the future.)
    Thank you for your time and attention
    Charles R Overbeck
    548 Firloch Ave, Unit #2
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    (I am a US Citizen).
    Charles R Overbeck, [email protected]
    ``One's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains 
its original dimensions.''-Oliver Wendell Holmes



MTC-00016895

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-bad idea.
    The microsoft settlement is clearly a bad idea. I could rant for 
hours, but won't, as many others already have. Suffice to say, it 
does not serve its purpose.
    James.



MTC-00016896

From: Josh Buermann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in regards to the Tunney Act public comment period 
on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. I am a US citizen 
and an IT professional.
    If any true innovation is to occur in the existing market 
policies must be enacted to foster interoperability through open 
formats, protocols, and standards. Microsoft stands now as it as 
stood in the past, in the way of any such possibilities. I am 
opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. 
I feel that the current proposed settlement does not fully redress 
the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their 
ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Respectfully,
    Josh Buermann
    Northwestern University: ISP, English
    ([email protected]://www.isp.nwu.edu/
fprefect/)
    University of Chicago-ARTFL Program 
([email protected]://
origin.uchicago.edu/buermann/)



MTC-00016897

From: Paul Ramsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I do not agree with the current settlement proposed for the 
MicroSoft antitrust case. MicroSoft was found to have been a 
monopoly and to have abused its monopoly power by the trail judge. 
The root of MicroSoft's monopoly power is its control over the 
desktop programming instructions within its Windows operating 
systems. Any settlement which allows MicroSoft to retain control of 
the desktop programming marketplace (via the Windows APIs) will not 
remedy the fundamental ability of MicroSoft to abuse its monopoly.
    Thank you,
    Paul Ramsey
    [email protected]
    (250) 885-0632



MTC-00016898

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not accept this settlement. If Microsoft has agreed to it the 
is can't be good for the people. A punishment should be just what it 
says...a punishment.
    Microsoft will continue to dominate the Operating System market 
and not allow competition to develop and grow. Microsoft has already 
file lawsuits against the Operating manufacturer Lindows, which is 
Linux based and will directly compete with Microsoft in the 
operating system market.
    The punishment imposed on Microsoft should significantly change 
the company in a manner that will not allow them to continue to 
operate in their current capacity.
    This settlement does not impose that type of punishment.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Greene
    Kansas City, KS
    913-461-5221



MTC-00016899

From: Will Secrest
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    it sucks big
    Will Secrest
    Development Manager-IS Projects
    Intercall
    ``Your First Choice for Voice and Internet 
Conferencing''
    Desk: (404) 720-2617
    Cell: (678) 557-7798
    Office Email: [email protected]
    Mobile Email: [email protected]
    Quote of the moment: ``using windows as a server platform 
is like using a yugo to deliver pizzas on the autobahn-it'll 
work, but...''



MTC-00016900

From: Adam Bovill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    I am just writing to let you know that I, as a taxpayer/voter/
citizen, feel that the settlement with Microsoft does not go far 
enough in limiting Microsoft's actions. I feel that they have taken 
advantage of their position as the controling producer of operating 
systems with the sole purpose of making money. They have an unfair 
advantage and use that to control other markets. I personally think 
that they should be required to provide any and all information 
needed for a competitor to write software that can function in their 
operating system. Office applications are a prime example of this. 
Competing developers did not have enough information about the 
operating system to be able to create products that ran as smoothly 
or were integrated at tightly with the OS as M$ did.
    Adam Bovill
    Charlotte, VT 05445



MTC-00016901

From: Geoff Butterfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:16pm
Subject: microsoft has acted selfishly
    Microsoft should not be allowed to simply buy or walk away from 
the anti-trust action.
    Thank you,
    Geoff Butterfield



MTC-00016902

From: Matthew Manor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement is an absolute travesty. After finding a 
company guilty of so many things, and then developing a

[[Page 26328]]

settlement that does not fit the findings of fact, is a complete 
injustice. Please reconsider.
    -Matthew Manor



MTC-00016903

From: Greg Copeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am greatly opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current settlement on the table 
does not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the 
past, nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the 
future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize and perpetuate the status quo. Of the remaining 
provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing 
its current monopoly position in the operating system market. This 
is especially important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's 
past transgressions. Most importantly, the proposed settlement does 
nothing to correct Microsoft's previous actions. Actions, I might 
add, which have repeatedly shown Microsoft does not acknowledge the 
authority and has no respect for the courts. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous and willful abuses. They only 
prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, 
goes against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization 
is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot 
commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their 
illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their 
abuses and not for the American people in general. While the Court's 
desire that a settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is 
simply wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for settlement's 
sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Please, I respectfully demand satisfaction be delivered and 
justice be served. Please allow competition by standing behind the 
American way of life. Force them to compete and innovate in the 
market place. Hold them accountable to the highest degree allowed 
for by law. Only then will justice and the American people of been 
properly served and protected by the courts.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Copeland



MTC-00016904

From: Jeff Avila
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I cannot endorse the current settlement proposal. Contrary to 
what knee-jerk antiregulatory business commentators might tell you, 
Microsoft has a history, detailed exhaustively, of preferring to 
manipulate markets and consumer options to stifle competition rather 
than appealing to consumers with better products. They must be 
deprived of the use of a operating system -distribution- 
monopoly to ensure competition.
    Thank You for your time.
    Jeff Avila
    Systems Analyst
    San Diego Supercomputer Center
    University of California, San Diego



MTC-00016905

From: Tim Tate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the 
American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Tim Tate



MTC-00016906

From: Rebecca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement concerns
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a citizen and a voter in this great nation. Additionally, I 
am an avid computer user. I am gravely concerned about the status of 
the Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft Corporation, as shown by he courts, holds an unfair 
and illegal monopoly. The company pursues business practices that 
are in antithesis to the competitive spirit of American business. 
Their business practices, contrary to anything their Public 
Relations office may say, stifle innovation. Microsoft has 
successfully foisted upon computer users an operating system that is 
insecure and unstable. Businesses that dare speak out against their 
shady business dealings soon find that they are declaring 
bankruptcy.
    The settlement as proposed has no teeth. It is in essence a slap 
on the wrist. Furthermore there are no concrete provisions for 
enforcement. As the settlement stands now, an internal compliance 
officer will be hired. I don't think it takes a psychic to see how 
effective that would be. If I as a private citizen broke the law, 
the court would not assign my uncle as the probation officer.
    I am opposed to the current settlement. My tax dollars funded 
the prosecution of the antitrust case, and to see such a paltry 
settlement angers me greatly. I urge you to rethink the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Rebecca Cordova
    511 Broadway
    Santa Cruz, CA 95060



MTC-00016907

From: Joe Nebel
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am strongly opposed to the current Microsoft settlement.
    In the past, Microsoft has used its power of monopoly to extend 
& embrace new technologies. This is not my opinion, its a 
finding of fact in US courts. Also, Microsoft has made public 
comments that they intend to continue this practice in the future. 
And why not? It will make them a lot of money. But the customer will 
suffer for two reasons, a lack of competion and a lack new 
technologies.
    Competitors are already afraid to develop competing products to 
MS applications like MS Office and MS Exchange because Microsoft has 
used their control of the OS to integrate their products better than 
any competitor. Many of these competitors have quit and their is 
little financing for any new competitor. Without competition, what 
will pressure MS to keep their prices and features 
`competitve'?
    Advancement of technologies will also suffer. Anyone financing 
any new technology (in a startup or an established company) must 
contend with the possiblity (probabilty) that MS can ``extend 
and embrace'' any technology that they deem profitable and that 
MS will use it OS to do it. This has created a very high barrier of 
entry into the market.
    I believe MS must publish all of its APIs and file formats for 
its OS and applications. It must also freely license the use of this 
API. Unless this is done, I believe MS will eventually become the 
only profitable desktop software company, and maybe the only server 
software company. I'm sure thats great for MS, but its bad for the 
consumer.
    John Nobel



MTC-00016908

From: Jason Waterman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most

[[Page 26329]]

important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Waterman
    11 Yale Road
    Arlington, MA 02474



MTC-00016909

From: Douglas M Jennewein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should 
become a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops 
to an acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's 
competitors is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft 
product lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00016910

From: Rick Halpert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the settlement in it's current form. For the 
following reasons:
    Microsoft has used both restrictive licenses and intentional 
incompatibilities to discourage users from running Windows 
applications on Windows-compatible competing operating systems. Two 
examples are given below.
    1. Microsoft uses license terms which prohibit the use of 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems MSNBC (a subsidiary 
of Microsoft) offers software called NewsAlert. Its EULA states 
``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft 
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. ...''
    Only the Windows version appears to be available for download. 
Users who run competing operating systems (such as Linux) which can 
run some Windows programs might wish to run the Windows version of 
NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this.
    MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated copies 
of operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve the 
same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For 
instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install 
and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running 
validly licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating 
system.''
    2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems An 
episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called 
MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of 
the operating system. Digital Research offered a competing operating 
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could 
run programs written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were 
not operating systems per se, but rather middleware that used the 
DOS API to interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was 
concerned with the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and 
added code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display 
spurious and misleading error messages when run on DR-DOS. 
Digital Research's successor company, Caldera, brought a private 
antitrust suit against Microsoft in 1996. (See the original 
complaint, and Caldera's consolidated response to Microsoft's 
motions for partial summary judgment.) The judge in the case ruled 
that ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.'' That case was settled out of court in 1999, and no 
court has fully explored the alleged conduct.
    The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge 
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to 
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so 
that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as 
they did earlier with Windows 3.1. The PFJ as currently written does 
nothing to prohibit these kinds of restrictive licenses and 
intentional incompatibilities, and thus encourages Microsoft to use 
these techniques to enhance the Applications Barrier to Entry, and 
harming those consumers who use non-Microsoft operating systems and 
wish to use Microsoft applications software.
    Richard N. Halpert
    Lotus Notes Administrator/Architect



MTC-00016911

From: Amine Korch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is bad idea. It is too 
soft on Microsoft given the anti-competitive way it has run its 
business for the past 10 years. It will not prevent Microsoft from 
continuing its monopoly over the Internet Browser and Operating 
System market. Also let's not forget that the first Microsoft OS 
product (DOS) was stolen from IBM, and Microsoft has never been 
punished for it.
    Amine Korch
    Java developer/IT
    Infosat Telecommunications, Inc.



MTC-00016912

From: Colin Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Per the Tunney Act, I am writing to express my disbelief that 
the proposed settlement is even being considered. Microsoft stands 
convicted of illegal behavior, and has more than 37 billion dollars 
of excess profit in the bank gathered during years of illegal 
conduct, yet the settlement terms include no fine. Crime should not 
be made profitable.
    The other major problem with the settlement is the lack of 
effective remedies to prevent future illegal product tying behavior 
that was at the root of the current case. This ineffective 
settlement should be set aside. I am a Microsoft stockholder, and 
have a financial stake in the outcome of this case, but the best 
interests of the citizens of the United States are not served by 
this misguided settlement. Justice should not be so obviously 
corrupted by wealth-a fair remedy wll include a substantial 
fine for past behavior as well as an effective constraint on future 
behavior.
    Colin Wilson
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00016913

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is formal notice that I feel that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is unjust and unfair.
    Patrick Finnegan
    West Lafayette, IN, Student-Purdue University



MTC-00016914

From: Andrew Gilber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept my comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I 
believe the agreement is inadequate and does little to remedy the 
monopoly situation Microsoft enjoys.The remedy does not adequately 
protect the consumer, and does not ensure freedom in choosing 
hardware, operating systems, and applications. It does not 
adequately ensure interoperability and adherence to public 
standards.

[[Page 26330]]

    Finally, and most importantly, I feel the continued monopoly 
power of Microsoft threatens the open source programming community. 
This community is now the only viable supplier of alternatives, and 
is clearly their next target. Microsoft's own public comments are 
frightening in this regard. Please exercise your trust more wisely. 
The proposed agreement is a sell out, and not in the public 
interest.
    Thank you.
    Andrew Gilbert
    117 Century Mill Road
    Bolton, MA 01740
    978-779-9968



MTC-00016915

From: Ian Felton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Please do not allow Microsoft to continue to keep their 
stranglehold on a siginificant part of the future of America and the 
developed (and developing) world.
    Do more than what is currently proposed or else all of the 
efforts to curb their practices will have been in vain.
    Sincerely,
    Ian Felton



MTC-00016916

From: Ian Ragsdale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd just like to voice my opinion that there are serious 
problems with the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. It is 
my belief that this judgment would not do anything to significantly 
curb Microsoft's power. They have already shown on many occasions to 
be willing to use their monopoly power to hurt competitors & 
consumers, and need to be stopped. For a comprehensive list of 
reasons of why this proposed settlement falls short, see Dan Kegel's 
open letter to the DOJ here:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Ian Ragsdale
    Software Engineer (SKYLIST.net)
    11511 Quarter Horse Trail
    Austin, TX 78750



MTC-00016917

From: Eric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the settlement with Microsoft. Several of my reasons 
are similar to those listed in this document http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html . This document contains several good revisions, 
especially the revisions to Definition U , and section III.A.2.
    If Microsoft can punish vendors who ship a computer that uses a 
non Microsoft OS, what vendor that currently ships computers with a 
Microsoft product will risk the loss of the Microsoft liscense? 
None. Another weakness of the Proposed Final Judgement is the lack 
of independant oversight of Microsoft. Just as the courts do not 
allow a convicted felon to monitor his/her own parole, Microsoft 
should be barred from the position of monitoring their own parole. 
Microsoft has shown no reason that it should be it's own parole 
officer.
    Eric Tompkins



MTC-00016918

From: Brian Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs-
    I believe Microsoft to be guilty of actively and maliciously 
abusing its monopoly power in detriment to the market. After reading 
the proposed judgement, it appears that Microsoft's punishment 
consists of being told (yet again) that they must play fair and the 
rules for playing fair are stated in the settlement.
    I in NO WAY how this is even appropriate to the crime of abusing 
their position in the marketplace, and the message that is sent to 
other companies is that they may act as predatory and illegally as 
they desire, with the result that they will be taken to court to 
only be reminded what it means to be a moral player in the 
marketplace. This is totally outrageous.
    Microsoft has deliberately and continually followed this course 
of abuse of their position in the marketplace. The punishment should 
be swift and harsh and hit them in the appropriate place, the loss 
of their ability to continue abusing their position in some fashion 
or another appropriate to the scope of their violations, so that 
other players in the marketplace will not continue to be harmed to 
the detriment of their owners and stockholders.
    Thank you,
    Brian Olsen
    [email protected]



MTC-00016919

From: Wesley Fonvergne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to place a comment in approval of the Microsoft 
settlement. Working in the computer industry, I realize Microsoft 
has abused the power they have. However, in the same sense, I still 
fail to see any suitable replacement for Microsoft Windows.
    As a software engineer, I can appreciate the amount of time that 
was spent in bringing Windows to its current form. In my opinion, an 
alternative doesn't exist because there has not been a company yet 
who is willing to devote the amount of time and dedication required 
to bring a truly usable alternative operating system to the computer 
industry. Microsoft's entire API is available, and a compatible 
operating system could be constructed support most modern 
applications, if a company were willing to do it.
    I feel this settlement would fairly police Microsoft, while 
still allowing them the corporate freedom they are entitled to.
    Sincerely,
    Wesley Fonvergne
    27940 Solamint Rd.
    Apartment #8-101
    Canyon Country, CA 91387



MTC-00016920

From: Sean Redmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Sean Redmond
    Sean Redmond
    Brooklyn Museum of Art



MTC-00016921

From: Christopher Weuve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing today to voice my opposition to the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    There are numerous flaws with the settlement as porposed. It 
doesn't prevent Microsoft from taking anti-competitive action, other 
than Microsoft ``promising'' not to do things that it 
already claims it isn't doing. And the entire idea of Microsoft 
paying damages by donating free hardware and software to one of the 
last bastions of non-Microsoft systems is appalling-it's the 
equivalent of letting the tobacco companies pay off their lawsuits 
by donating free cigarettes to schoolchildren.
    Please, don't go through with this plan. Microsoft for year's 
has believed that the laws governing fair competition simply do not 
apply to it. They've consitently lied and manipulated the data and 
public opinion. Please show that the rule of law still means 
something in America.
    Best regards,
    chrisw
    Christopher Weuve [[email protected]]
    PO Box 11261
    Alexandria, VA 22312

[[Page 26331]]

    703-597-5293 mobile
    703-824-2406 work
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016922

From: Damon Raphael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I am:
Damon S. Raphael, MD
1601 N Tucson Blvd, #35
Tucson AZ 85716-3409
Phone: 520-321-4345
Email: [email protected]
    I am a physician and a long time licensed user of Microsoft 
software since 1978. I am an advanced computer user having studied 
computer programming at Pima Community College and continue to 
program, build and use computers for my business and personal 
pleasure.
    I am a founding member of the Tucson Free Unix Group (http://
www.tfug.org) and use Redhat Linux version 7.2 as my OS of choice. 
My business uses MS Windows 98 SE. My wife uses a Macintosh G3 with 
OS 9. I wish to point out to you one of the most annoying and 
typically disruptive practices of Microsoft:
    I recently purchase a Dell Latitude CPt laptop computer directly 
from the manufacturer. I installed my Redhat Linux system on it and 
was unable to configure the modem to dial out. After many hours of 
trying to rectify the problem, I called Dell for help. I was 
informed that the modem chip on the motherboard was a 
``Winmodem'' and not compatible with any other operating 
system except Microsoft Windows.
    The same problem exists with ``Winprinters''. These 
dedicated ``Win'' devices use code from within the 
Microsoft Windows OS to implement the operation of the printer 
rather than code that ordinarily would be found in a chip on the 
motherboard of all the other kinds of printers available to 
consumers. Microsoft has influenced most of the printer and modem 
manufacturers to produce these ``Win'' devices which, when 
purchased unknowingly by the consumer, render it impossible to 
tryout or use a non Microsoft OS.
    Microsoft will not release the code which drives these 
``Windevices'' nor will they provide a software driver 
which would allow competing operating systems to use these devices. 
The potential loss in monetary value, lost time and aggravation to 
the consumer is staggering when one considers the large number of 
such devices out there. This is only one illustration of Microsoft's 
stranglehold on the consumer's options in the OS universe.
    Microsoft should be forced to release the code which drives the 
``Windevices'' and manufacturers such as Dell, Canon and 
HP should be fined for producing and selling thse devices without 
warning the unsuspecting consumer of the consequences of their 
purchase. Better still, ``Windevices'' should be illegal.
    Yours truly,
    Damon S. Raphael, MD
    Tucson, AZ
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016923

From: Oliver Stacey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. 
Why? As a computer software professional, I've seen first hand the 
effect that Microsoft has had on the software industry, using their 
unfair monopolistic practices to push inferior, unstable, and buggy 
products on the world. I believe what they have done is wrong, and I 
believe that it is up to the US government, specifically the 
Department of Justice, to punish them for their illegal acts. The 
proposed settlement is nothing more than a slap on the wrist; it 
doesn't go far enough, it does very little to prevent future 
anticompetitive behavior, and isn't enforcible enough.



MTC-00016924

From: Dorine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my displeasure at Microsoft for trying 
to get out of their due punishment for unsavoury business practices. 
They have already been convicted for anti trust violations....now I 
think they should have to pay for their crimes. Please restore my 
faith in the US Justice Department and do not let them buy their way 
out of this one. Free software is not enough to restore their 
integrity and our (as the consumers) confidence in their integrity.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely
    Dorine Leisz



MTC-00016925

From: Brian Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed 
settlement in the case of US (Plaintiff) vs. Microsoft (Defendant) 
(Civil Action No. 98-1232).
    As has been expressed by many others, the proposed settlement 
does little to discourage Microsoft from continuing the anti-
competitive actions for which it has been found guilty. The 
opportunities for continued abuse by the Defendant under the 
proposed settlement are many and varied. As an example, I would like 
to direct your attention to the following:
    Revised Proposed Final Conduct, Section III(J)(2)(c): ``No 
provision of this Final Judgment shall:...prevent Microsoft from 
conditioning any license...on the requirement that the 
licensee:...meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business,''
    This clause allows for Microsoft to continue to dictate who and 
on what terms they will open their API to. All currently shipping 
versions of Micrsoft operating systems (Windows 98/ME, Windows 2000, 
Windows XP) are Network Operating Systems by design, meaning that 
authorization and authentication security are designed into most of 
the APIs.
    Allowing Microsoft to make the determination of what constitutes 
a ``business'' provides them the opportunity to keep in 
place market barriers to entry almost arbitrarily. This will have a 
deleterious impact on numerous commercial and Open Source projects 
such as SAMBA (SAMBA is an Open Source implementation of Microsoft's 
network storage protocols, which includes, by necessity,interfaces 
to Microsoft's User Authentication services). SAMBA is widely used 
throughout numerous US companies as it allows almost seamless 
integration with existing IT infrastructure while providing 
increased reliability compared to Microsoft's own solutions.
    I humbly ask that this proposed judgment be deemed faulty and 
other remedies to conduct be imposed.
    Very Respectfully,
    Brian Miller
    Arlington, Virginia



MTC-00016926

From: Lee Willoughby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Considering these problems, one must conclude that the Proposed 
Final Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence 
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. Therefore, the 
Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and should 
not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    Please refer to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#fix 
for suggested changes.
    Lee Willoughby
    6424 Morningside Drive
    Kansas City, MO 64113



MTC-00016927

From: Michael N. Obenchain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to ad my voice in support of imposing real 
penalties in the Microsoft case. If jail time was an option there 
might be hope of reform. In this case I have not seen any remorse 
from Microsoft and the very activities that got them in trouble have 
only slightly been reined in. Everything up to this point looks like 
someone trying to buy their

[[Page 26332]]

way out of trouble. Personally I feel that a break up of the company 
would be the only way to really slow Microsoft down. I am 
particularly disturbed by the arrogance shown by Microsoft in trying 
to dictate its own punishment. For example:
    ``The proposed remedies submitted today by the nine holdout 
states are extreme and not commensurate with what is left of the 
case,'' the company said. ``The court of appeals decision 
drastically narrowed the liability issues and provides the best road 
map as we move forward with these remedy proceedings. The settlement 
we reached with the Department of Justice and nine of the plaintiff 
states is a fair and reasonable compromise that is good for 
consumers and will be good for the economy. We are committed to 
complying fully with the proposed decree and remain hopeful that we 
can resolve any outstanding issues as quickly as possible in the 
interest of consumers and the industry.''
    As this case will most definitely set future precedent, it is of 
the utmost importance to get it right. Do not let Microsoft off with 
a settlement that will play to their advantage. Did not the United 
States government in District Court and the unanimous seven-member 
Court of Appeals find them guilty? The proposed settlement would be 
acceptable only if Microsoft had been found innocent (of course then 
no penalty is applied). They have been caught and need to be taught 
that the public will not stand for illegal behavior of any kind. Am 
I optimistic that this will happen? No.
    Yours truly,
    Michael N. Obenchain
    Michael Obenchain
    Web Coordinator
    Library Systems
    University of Wyoming
    [email protected]



MTC-00016928

From: Jeff Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am taking this opportunity to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I have many issues with the settlement as it 
stands. Most importantly, the Proposed Final Judgement:
    Does not take into account Windows-compatible operating systems.
    Microsoft increases the applications barrier to entry in this 
market by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities and yet the Proposed Final Judgement fails to 
prohibit this, and even contributes to it.
    Fails to prohibit anticompetitive licensing terms. Microsoft 
currently uses excessively restrictive licensing terms to keep 
competing applications from running on Windows. Similarly, Microsoft 
currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows apps from 
running on competing operating systems. Furthermore, Microsoft's 
enterprise licensing agreements (used by large companies, state 
governments, and universities) charge by the number of computers 
which COULD run a Microsoft operating system, not for the number 
that actually DO. For universities especially, assuming that all PCs 
run Windows is absurd, and a bald attempt to extort money. Similar 
licenses to outside equipment manufacturers (OEMs) were once banned 
by the 1994 consent decree, and yet Microsoft continues the 
practice.
    Appears to lack an effective enforcement mechanism. The Proposed 
Final Judgement fails require advance notice of technical 
requirements. Fails to force Microsoft to document many of its APIs 
(the interfaces between application programs and the operating 
system).
    These are not the only problems that I see with the PFJ, but 
merely the most striking. I beleive that the Proposed Final Judgment 
as written allows, and even encourages, significant anticompetitive 
practices to continue, delays the emergence of competing Windows-
compatible operating systems, and is therefore not in the public 
interest. It should NOT be adopted without SUBSTANTIAL revision to 
address these problems.
    Yours,
    Jeffrey Smith



MTC-00016929

From: phatix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally oppose the settlement currently proposed by the 
Dept. of Justice. Please consider a more suitable punishment than 
the current settlement.
    Mike Overbo
    St. Paul, MN



MTC-00016930

From: Tony Perkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not complete the Proposed Final Judgement without 
taking into consideration Microsoft's historic abusive practices of 
intentional incompatibilities and specifically prohibiting them. 
Please also consider very severe consequences for future abuses of 
this nature. You are probably looking at this as a big long project 
that you have nearly finished. Wouldn't you rather look back upon 
this project knowing you have actually done something to help the 
problem? Don't just let it run its course. I strongly urge you to 
look at it as a way that one company can put another company out of 
buisness. Or, look at it the way I do, as a programmer, as one 
company trying to put me out of a job.
    Thank you.
    Tony Perkins
    QA Software Engineer
    NTT/Verio, Orem UT
    [email protected]
    801-437-7567



MTC-00016931

From: K. O.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Microsoft is a monopoly.
    The settlement still leaves Microsoft with the ability to 
maintain and even extend its monopoly, a fact that only works 
against competition, consumers, and the American people in general.
    (I am a United States citizen.)



MTC-00016932

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: comment on Proposed Final Judgment-U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    I wish to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in the case of 
U.S. v. Microsoft. I am a world-wide-web engineer with 6 
years'' experience. In and before this time, I have spent a 
great deal of time using computers, running Microsoft's software and 
others.
    Throughout this time I have been appalled beyond measure at 
Microsoft's practices-particularly its practice of leveraging 
its monopoly power to ruthlessly destroy any business or technology 
that threatens it. In this way, Microsoft has reduced-if not 
elminated- competition, and prevented the distribution of 
superior (or at least alternative) technologies. It has generally 
staked claim to exclusive control of a vast sector of the American 
economy, to the extent that no other enterprise dare attempt to 
enter the field.
    The proposed settlement is not even a slap on the wrist. 
Microsoft itself clearly knows this, and continues to behave as 
though it had not been found guilty in a court of law-engaging 
in anticompetitive conduct and further entrenching its illegal 
monopoly. In essence, Microsoft will have been found guilty, and 
then allowed to walk free with no punishment, and with no real 
mechanisms to prevent further abuses. Why should the company 
hesitate to continue to break the law both in letter and spirit in 
the face of such impotence of the American the justice system?
    I am optimistic. I have hope that the United States Departement 
of Justice-at its fundamental level-cannot be bought. If 
the settlement goes forward as currently proposed, I will have a 
great deal of trouble maintaining this belief.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Dosser



MTC-00016933

From: Christian B. Lahti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial as it fails to address the following:
    a.. It does not adequately penalize them for past transgressions
    b.. It does not provide mechanisms to correct their 
anticompetitive behavior
    c.. It does not inhibit their ability to commit similar actions 
in the future.
    d.. It does not allow their competition adequate measures to 
overcome Microsoft's current monopoly.
    Regards,
    Christian B. Lahti
    NeoMagic Corp.
    3250 Jay Street
    Santa Clara, CA 95054

[[Page 26333]]



MTC-00016934

From: Jay Coggins
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 12:21pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am a long-time user of OS/2 and Linux and I have paid careful 
attention to developments in the Federal/State antitrust action 
against Microsoft. I have read about the proposed settlement and I 
do not feel that it will provide the kind of relief necessary to 
restore competition to the software industry.
    I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
settlement. Please consider this a vote against the settlement. I 
would like to see the Department of Justice obtain a much stronger 
settlement, one that effectively reins in Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior.
    Thank you.
    Jay Coggins
    University of Minnesota



MTC-00016935

From: Josef Zeevi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi. If at all possible, please do not let Microsoft off the 
hook. Yes, they're a big company. Yes, they've done good things. 
Yes, they violate anti-trust (based on the court-ruling and my own 
personal sense). Do not let them get away with it in a meaningless 
settlement.



MTC-00016936

From: Jason Peel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: The Microsoft Case
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am in total disagreement with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I feel that the proposal will not significantly change 
the way Microsoft operates, which is to aggressively neutralize any 
and all competition. This proposal doesn't actually hurt them in any 
way that matters; I urge you to reconsider.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Peel
    Senior Network Architect
    Network Thought Co.



MTC-00016937

From: John Langford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've been amazed while watching the Microsoft vs. DOJ court 
case. First, I was amazed at how adept the US DOJ's prosecution 
appeared to be, and then I was amazed by how badly the US DOJ has 
failed in the penalty phase of the trial. I have studied the 
proposed settlement in a semithrough manner and I am aware of no 
clause which will inhibit MS in any significant manner.
    I consider the penalty phase to be very important because MS is 
currently essentially in the position of an unregulated utility 
monopoly. This is a dangerous enough that I expect the market 
distortion which Microsoft generates to affect other industries in 
significant ways soon. I believe the US experiment with capitolism 
has been remarkably succesful, and I'm alarmed to see the US giving 
up on it. If a restoration to a real marketplace can not be 
achieved, please consider at least regulating Microsoft in some 
semieffective manner.
    -John



MTC-00016938

From: Mark Wagner
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 
601 D Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at ), namely:
    *The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    *Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry. 
    *The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    *The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered. 
    *The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all. 
    *The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware. 
    *The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the 
X-Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and 
are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''. 
    *The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs. 
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible. 
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows. 
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents. 
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users. 
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    *Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows. 
    *Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems. 
    *Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.) 
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    *Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems. 
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system. 
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs- including regional `white box' OEMs which 
are historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software. 
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas. 
    *The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. 
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the

[[Page 26334]]

emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is 
therefore not in the public interest. It should not be adopted 
without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Wagner, Fremont, California; Database Administrator, IBM /
CrossWorlds



MTC-00016939

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settling with Microsoft is a bad idea. I think that allowing 
Microsoft to donate computers to classrooms around the nation would 
be counterproductive, to say the least. I'm not using a Microsoft 
machine right now because I grew up using something different. A 
settlement involving donation to schools would limit choice for 
students, and ultimately widen Microsoft's slice of the pie.
    Bill Bevis, Galesburg IL



MTC-00016940

From: Michael W. Shaffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my personal voice in OPPOSITION to the 
currently proposed settlement in the case of U.S. vs. Microsoft. As 
an IT professional and a citizen, I feel that the settlment as it is 
currently drafted does not address the critical issues of the case, 
will not put an end to the offensive, condescending, and criminal 
behavior of the defendant, and does not serve the interests of 
either my industry or the citizenry of this country.
    Sincerely,
    Michael W. Shaffer
    Network and Security Administrator
    Agilent Technologies
    Palo Alto, California



MTC-00016941

From: Joe merhar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement that has been reached between the 
Department of Justice and the nine states. This settlement is fair 
for the consumers and is generously fair to the competitors. I am 
not in favor of the competition using litigation that is costing us 
taxpayers and consumers money for the agenda of Microsoft 
competitors. The competition needs to compete like all other 
companies in our capitolistic system and may the best products win 
the competition. Lets settle this case now and focus our energies on 
more important issues such as the economy and the security of this 
country.



MTC-00016942

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division 601 D Street NW, Suite 
1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    William Greene
    3285 Windgate Dr.
    Buford, GA 30519-1942



MTC-00016943

From: D.A. Mazzella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my displeasure with the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement proposal. I feel that the single biggest issues 
affecting competition are the facts that
    1) Microsoft has an effective monopoly of the ``office 
productivity suite'' class of applications, web browser 
application and operating system (Windows)
    2) they make it very difficult for other vendors to interoperate 
with their product (Microsoft Office), and stray from standards in 
``embracing and extending'' them.
    Potential new vendors must support the Office document formats 
because they are the de facto standard, but they are undocumented, 
and thus it is almost impossible for any potential new vendors to 
support them well. As a result, the consumer has little choice but 
to buy Office, and because it only runs on Windows, he has no choice 
in operating systems either.
    Microsoft has forced all other web browsers into a ``nitch 
market'' by bundling the browser with the operating system 
Microsoft forces PC manufacturers to put Windows on new PC's, 
without the choice of alternative operating systems like Linux 
(Redhad, Mandrake, SuSE, etc) Solaris x86 (Sun Microsystems) or BSD 
(the Open BSD Group).
    I feel that any effective settlement must include the following 
conditions:
    * Microsoft must release full documentation for the existing 
Office file formats;
    * Microsoft must be prohibited from introducing changes to these 
formats without releasing full documentation of the changes;
    * Microsoft must be release said documentation in advance of 
their actual support for the changes, to prevent other vendors from 
having to play catch-up;
    * Microsoft must participate in the development of new, open 
document formats, preferably based on XML and governed by an 
independent standards body.
    * Microsoft must open the source code to their Windows operating 
system, there by allowing others access into the internals for 
better competition.
    * Microsoft must release a fully functional version of Microsoft 
Office for Linux, Macintosh, Solaris and BSD
    * Microsoft must bundle the Mozilla Web Browser with the 
operating system
    * Microsoft must stop forcing new PC manufacturers from bundling 
Windows with a new PC
    * Microsoft must allow the reselling of unwanted software (the 
website Ebay.com closes all acutions that sell Microsoft products)
    The effect of these conditions would be to allow other vendors 
to develop a product competitive to Microsoft products for the first 
time in years. This in turn would open the door to competition in 
many other areas.
    Thank you
    Dan Mazzella
    209 Opera House St
    Henderson, NV
    89012



MTC-00016944

From: Matt Hartshorn
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the proposed settlement because I do not think 
it provides sufficient punishment to balance Microsoft's offenses, 
nor sufficient incentive to prevent them from doing the same in the 
future. Furthermore, the idea of punishing a monopoly by requiring 
them to extend their monopoly into the US educational system is 
incomprehensible.
    Much has been said of finding a win/win solution. Please keep in 
mind that Microsoft broke the law and is supposed to be punished. 
They are not supposed to win.
    Matt Hartshorn-Sr. Software Engineer
    [email protected]
    Voice-(480) 966-5394 ext. 1723
    Fax-(480) 449-2802



MTC-00016945

From: kim lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I used the early versions of Netscape and it was a good product. 
It made accessing the internet easier in the early years of the 
internet's evolution. I then purchased a new IBM computer with 
Windows 98 installed. Every time I accessed the internet, Windows 
would try to change my web browser to Internet Explorer. It was 
annoying to say the least. It also took extra steps to erase/delete 
the Explorer from my files. I think many people would just click on 
the ``OK'' button and have the browser changed, wihtout 
thinking about it.
    Suppressing competition is a long term project at Microsoft. 
Just look at Microsoft's history, even the historic operating system 
MS-DOS was purchased from some other company in Washington 
state, not developed by the people at Microsoft. The core ideas 
behind GUI were developed by XEROX, who didn't know how to use it to 
their advantage.
    The government lost interest, for whatever reason, in pursuing 
this case to a just

[[Page 26335]]

resolution. The punishment should be much larger than the proposals 
reported in the newspapers. This type of illegal activity continues 
to be pursued by Microsoft. Letting them donate ``free'' 
software to the schools is the stupidest idea possible. It'll 
probable have a security bug in it, hust like Windows XP. Here's 
hoping you find the courage to fix this problem.



MTC-00016946

From: Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've watched Microsoft grow to it's position of supreme 
dominance in the PC operating system and software over the last 20 
years. I have watched Microsoft destroy many innovative companies 
and products through means that I consider unfair and unethical. I 
believe that Judge Jackson's findings of fact and his remedy are 
unprejudiced and warranted. Microsoft ``is'' a monopoly 
and must be disassembled. There needs to be fair competition, and 
Microsoft should not be allowed to continue as it has. Microsoft's 
proposed settlement of donating software does nothing to remedy it's 
wrongs. I believe that settlement is a very bad idea.



MTC-00016947

From: Dale Luck
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comment
    This is my public comment on the proposed antitrust settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft.
    I earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science from 
Michigan Technological University in 1979. Have been in the business 
of creating commercial computer software for more than 20 years.
    Since the 1980's I've observed Microsoft success in the computer 
software area. In the 1990's it became clear to me that their 
strategy had moved from creating competitive software to restricting 
others from competing against them.
    I believe the proposed settlement is definitely not in the best 
interest of the public. It does not go far enough to promote the 
creation of an environment where software programs that are better 
than microsofts programs will be allowed to compete in a fair 
marketplace.
    Under ``Prohibited Conduct'', Microsoft is prevented 
from penalizing an oem, vender, etc. if they choose to include non-
microsoft software in their product offering that also includes 
Microsoft Windows. This is a good start, however this does not 
address the problem of the implied penalty Microsoft applies to a 
non-Microsoft product that competes with something that Microsoft 
has chosen to now include with their base operating system. The 
penalty being that the OEM is required to pay for Microsoft's 
version even though the oem does not want to include it.
    Why is this a problem? Microsoft, is able to further its 
monopoly position and even more so its monopolistic pricing by 
forcing customers to buy things they don't want and then charging 
what it thinks is its fair market value. The first example of this 
was Microsoft's Internet Explorer vs Netscape's Browser.
    The latest example of this is Microsoft's audio media player vs 
RealNetworks Media Player.
    It costs money to develop software. Microsoft pays for the 
development of its software by bundling it with the OS and then 
forcing the customer to pay for it, regardless of how well it works.
    Companies that do not have the fortune of owning the OS for 
which their application will run must charge money for their 
software and to pay for development and return a reasonable ROI for 
its investors. This puts them at a disadvangate and forces almost 
all software developers to stay away from any products that they 
fear would compete with a similar product that is, or could ever be 
bundled with the OS.
    How to fix that? The only way to fix that is to level the 
playing field between Microsoft and all the other software 
developers and companies.
    To level the playing field requires 2 things:
    First-Microsoft must be required to offer a stripped down 
Operating System without all the of Microsoft's versions of features 
that OEMS and customer don't want.
    That will level the pricing playfield.
    Second-Microsoft must publish and make available to the 
software development community the API's and rules used by these 
unbundled Microsoft applications when talking to the Basic OS.
    And that will level the development playfield.
    Why do we want this? Who will benefit? The true beneficiary of 
the above is the consumer. It is only in a truly competive software 
development and market environment will we see better products 
become available for the consumer. The present environment stifle 
competition, and leaves it up to Microsoft to dictate the direction 
of software development. It is because of Microsoft's dominance that 
we are inundated by viruses, spam, and slow and buggy programs. 
Microsoft has no incentive to improve its products because it lives 
in a monopoly, able to sell any halfdone program to the consumer 
because they can bundle it in with the OS and then charge a little 
more for the OS.
    There are thousands of highly qualified and motivated software 
developers and companies that can produce better products than 
Microsoft for email, web browsing, realtime audio, etc. yet they are 
not allowed to do this for the dominate OS, Microsoft Windows.
    So because of this, the American consumer can never enjoy the 
fruits of those talented programmers.
    I agree that the proposed settlement would benefit those 
disadvantaged schools, but at to great a cost for the American 
consumer now, and in the long term it is a bad deal for the schools 
as well. Those schools would get technology dictated by a monopolist 
that is intended to benefit the monopolist.
    If this were such a good deal for the schools, Microsoft should 
go ahead and make the donations, however those donations should not 
be considered part of the settlement for this anti-trust issue.
    Thanks for listening to me,
    I trust that the right decision will be made. It is really 
obvious to nearly all the rest of the computer software industry.
    Dale Luck
    Shoreline Communications
    [email protected]



MTC-00016948

From: spencerpries@ mclmx.mail.saic.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned US Citizen and computer user, I am OPPOSED to the 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    Microsoft has been clearly found guilty of monopolistic 
practices. However, the PFJ does not impose penalties upon Microsoft 
for the illegal gains it has obtained. The PFJ takes inadequate 
steps to restrain Microsoft from the same or similar monopolistic 
practices. And the PFJ, which expires after only a few years, does 
nothing to restrain Microsoft from the same monopolistic practices 
in the future.
    The Department of Justice was mistaken to either propose or 
accept an offer of settlement with Microsoft. The PFJ must be 
discarded, and adequate measures crafted to penalize Microsoft for 
their illegal gains and restrain their monopolistic practices. As a 
minimum, I advocate the breakup of Microsoft into an Operating 
Systems division, an Applications division, and possibly an 
``Other'' division. In addition, I advocate that Microsoft 
be required to open ALL its APIs and file formats, allowing genuine 
competition and innovation.
    I am a co-signer of the Dan Kegel petition.
    Steven Spencer-Priebe
    Crofton, Maryland
    Telecom Systems Engineer, Science Applications International 
Corporation.
    SAIC is not responsible for these opinions.



MTC-00016949

From: David C. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is bad!
    David C. Smith, MCSE, CCNP, Oracle OCP (DBA)
    Principal Architect/CEO
    24x7Monitored.Com-Perfected Internet Monitoring Services
    Web: www.24x7monitored.com
    Email: [email protected]
    Cell: 703-629-0652



MTC-00016950

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to voice my concerns about the Proposed Final 
Judgment in United States v. Microsoft case.
    I am president of Instrumental Software Technologies, Inc. We 
are a software consulting firm who specializes in writing custom 
software for the geophysical research community (Many US 
Universities and the US Geological Survey are our clients.) We

[[Page 26336]]

write software that runs under Microsoft OS's (NT, 2000, me, etc) as 
well as Linux and Solaris. Three quarters of our company works 
develops software primarily under the Linux operating system.
    The Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft 
prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, but curiously 
allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    The problem I have with this is as a commercial software 
development firm, we need to buy our computers from reputable 
sources. While we prefer to buy from companies like Dell, the 
effects of the above section may effectively force us to buy an OS 
from Microsoft for every computer in our office, even though all but 
4 of our computers have had their hard disks cleared upon arrival in 
our offices and have Linux installed on them instead. This section 
effectively forces us to spend our precious monetary resources on 
Microsoft products that we have no intension of using.
    If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
    Best Regards,
    Sid Hellman
    President
    ISTI
    Sidney Hellman
    [email protected]
    http://www.isti.com
    (518)602-0001-office
    (518)602-0002-fax
    Instrumental Software Technologies, Inc.
    Systems Integration and Software Development Specialists
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016951

From: Sean Patrick Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:23pm
Subject: Tunney Act Comment
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to voice my complete dissatisfaction with the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. It is clear to all sides of this 
matter that the original limits imposed on the company were 
ineffective and ignored. Re-imposing them will only prolong the 
stranglehold they have over the software industry.
    As an American, a college student and a computer programmer, I 
beg you to revise your proposal. Please consider breaking the 
company apart. The only way that we, the software industry, can 
breath is if you force apart the 800 pound gorrilla that now sits 
upon our chests.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sean Burke
    28 North Street
    Geneseo, NY 14454



MTC-00016952

From: Erik Burd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement with Microsoft shouldn't be allowed. It will not 
remedy the core problem of Microsoft's unethical and anticompetitive 
business practices. The only thing it will do is extend their 
monopoly into schools, which the last place any real competition 
really exists.
    Microsoft won't care a bit, as it will do nothing more than get 
more people using their products, who would most likely be buying 
their software. I see this as a big bribe offered by someone with a 
lot of cash burning a hole in their wallet, as they have nothing 
better to do with a whopping $35 billion. It's like a police officer 
accepting a payoff from the mob or crime ring to look the other way.
    What really needs to be done is to level the playing field and 
allow small companies to compete in the marketplace. Many companies 
have been shut out of the market by Microsoft's product bundling 
with Windows. These small companies are the real innovators, and 
they are the companies that must be allowed to exist. Otherwise, we 
will all lose the innovation that's required for us to make the next 
big step forward. Microsoft couldn't come up with an original 
innovation if it's existance depended on it.
    I was extremely disappointed with the DOJ, as they snatched 
defeat from the jaws of victory. I'm happy that the nine states are 
going ahead on their own lawsuit to set things straight. I hope 
something does happen, but I have some doubts in the back of my 
mind. A very strong action must be taken, or Microsoft will only 
continue with their monopoly.
    My thoughts on restoring competition:
    1) Remove all bundling of Internet Explorer from all versions of 
Windows. Make it an optional download.
    2) Additionally, remove any tying in of their other products 
(Windows Media Player, etc.) to Windows. There was a recent security 
bug in Internet Explorer which was fixed, ironically, by updating 
Windows Media Player. Make them optional downloads, too.
    3) Punish Microsoft for their anticompetitive behavior, and hard
    4) Ensure that small startup companies are allowed to innovate 
and create the next generation of software, without being bullied 
around by Microsoft.
    5) Create a marketplace that will allow the computer users to 
determine who has the best product.
    6) Take strong steps to protect competition.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
    Erik Burd
    Sunnyvale, CA



MTC-00016953

From: Sean McAdam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I write this as a computer professional who makes a living by 
consulting in the computing field.
    I find it hard to believe that after Microsoft was found guilty 
of monopolistic practices that the settlement proposed by the DOJ 
would simply let them off the hook with-NOT-even a slap 
on the wrist. The settlement only serves to entrench the status quo, 
basically allowing MS to continue their current practices while 
paying lip service to the consumers.
    As an avid computer user, and someone who makes his living from 
providing computer consulting and services to my clients I can see 
first hand how boxed in we as a nation are by the continuation of 
the monopoly that is Microsoft. The citizens of this nation deserve 
better.
    Some alternative possible remedies:
    Spin off the development tools section of MS, so that the tools 
and the OS cannot be tightly integrated. This would allow for other 
software product developers to have a fairer shake at competing with 
MS.
    Force full disclosure of the windows API, both win32 and the 
native API. Force full disclosure of the various document formats 
used in Word, Excel, Access, etc. Require that any changes are 
published in advance.
    Without a settlement with some teeth in it we are worse off then 
we were before the trial started. As you can tell I am very much 
opposed to the settlement, if you can call it that, in its current 
form.
    Thank you for your time.
    ï¿½7ESean



MTC-00016954

From: Mark Jacob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that the current proposed settlement the the Microsoft 
Antitrust case is inadequate, and needs major revisions.
    Mark Jacob



MTC-00016955

From: Matt Dew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
is a very bad idea. They have shown their sole interest is 
Microsoft's profits and stock value and not the consumer.
    thank you,
    Matt Dew
    (Any comments above are strictly my own and not necessarily in 
agreement with my employer.)
    Matt Dew
    SEAKR Engineering, Inc
    6221 So. Racine Circle
    Centennial, CO 80111
    Ph: (303)790-1305 x238
    Fx: (303)790-8720



MTC-00016956

From: Asiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00016957

From: Keith Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
US District Court for the District of Columbia

[[Page 26337]]

Comments about US v. Microsoft proposed settlement
    I feel the remedies suggested by the proposed settlement do 
little to deter or punish Microsoft for actions and behaviors proven 
to be anticompetitive and illegal. Most egregious in my mind, 
however, is the position Microsoft will be in to stifle and lock out 
the Open Source movement.
    As a developer of Internet solutions, I am quite familiar with 
the long and brutal conflict between Open Source tools and Microsoft 
tools and the gulf created between the two camps. Microsoft has been 
making steady inroads to the server and Internet markets simply by 
the virtue of their monopolistic position. By breeding ubiquity in 
the desktop market, they have orchestrated lock-in to the server 
market using closed and inoperable APIs, proprietary protocols and 
(even worse) embracing open protocols and modifying them with non-
open extensions. All of these tactics are designed to put third 
party, and specifically, Open Source tools at a disadvantage when 
used with their desktop systems.
    The settlement stipulates that Microsoft open ``the APIs 
and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to 
interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product'' (section 
D) as well as ``any Communications Protocol that is, ... (i) 
implemented in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a 
client computer, and (ii) used to interoperate natively ... with a 
Microsoft server operating system product'' (section E). Both 
sections are a step in the right direction and force Microsoft to 
allow independent developers the ability interoperate with Microsoft 
systems freely.
    However, section J.2 limits this condition by requiring that for 
anything related to ``anti-piracy systems, anti-virus 
technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/
authorization security, or third party intellectual property 
protection mechanisms'', a third party developer must meet 
these requirements in order to gain access to said information:
    (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
    These conditions are applicable to businesses and for-profit 
entities, but specifically lock out any Open Source projects or 
anyone who does not have `reasonable business needs'. 
Additionally, with Microsoft focusing on its new `.NET' 
strategy of distributed application programming, almost EVERY aspect 
of development will fall under `authentication/authorization 
security' since almost EVERY aspect of the protocol, API or 
documentation will run across public, untrusted networks.
    Given Microsoft's record of finding miniscule loopholes in past 
judgements and exploiting them to further their control and flout 
the law, this one strikes me as particularly onerous (not to mention 
ironic). It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Microsoft's 
complicity with this proposed settlement is based quite largely on 
the fact that .NET will make the entire thing moot on this point, 
and at the same time provide an absolutely crushing blow to the Open 
Source movement which they deem such a threat.
    I sincerely hope that this settlement is rejected or at least 
amended to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Keith M. Anderson



MTC-00016958

From: Kathleen Much
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose any settlement that allows Microsoft to 
maintain its predatory monopolies in software and Internet access.
    Rather than donating Microsoft software and Wintel hardware to 
schools, the company should be required to donate Unix and Apple 
software and equipment. Even a very large donation wouldn't dent 
Microsoft's monopoly position, but it would be more just than 
Gates's proposal, which merely entrenches it.
    Microsoft's arrogance and unconcern for its customers should not 
be encouraged in any way. Its software is shoddy, full of bugs, 
vulnerable to hackers, and hopelessly behind its competitors, but 
its vicious practices have made it supreme in the marketplace.
    For the record, my retirement plan owns Microsoft stock. I still 
strongly oppose the company's practices.
    Stop the insanity. Break up Microsoft.
    Kathleen Much
    128 Hillside Ave.
    Menlo Park, CA 94025
    (650) 321-2052



MTC-00016959

From: Michael Winecoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is inadequate, and I believe 
it is inadequate because it has been influenced by lobbyist. While 
it may often be true that the fat cat with the biggest pockets can 
buy the best defence, ``this proposed settlement'' is 
being watched with shame by many Americans who may own a computer, 
but live financially at the poverty level, such as myself.
    The whole thing is disgraceful.
    Michael Stowell Winecoff, LMP



MTC-00016960

From: Allan Folz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my dissent with the proposed Microsoft 
Antitrust settlement. The area I find it most lacking is assurances 
to the non-commercial developer community (GNU/Linux, Apache, 
sendmail, etc.) that they will be able to write software that 
interoperates with Microsoft products, and likewise Microsoft 
products will not be written so as to actively interfere with non-
commercial software. This has demonstrably happened in the past, the 
most notorious of which was Windows 95 interference with the LILO 
boot loader program.
    In fact, the whole judgement is geared towards commercial 
interests, the systems and procedures commercial interests share in 
common, and the financial redress commercial interests can 
objectively compute. The non-commercial community has its own unique 
characteristics and requirements that don't easily follow with those 
of commercial interests. However, the non-commercial software 
community is so vital to the high-tech economy and society of modern 
America that putting in place the special rules required of it is 
just as important as those required of commercial interests.
    Sincerely,
    Allan Folz
    901 Sw King Ave Apt 1012
    Portland OR 97205
    These views are my own and should in no way be construed as 
necessarily endorsed by my employer.



MTC-00016961

From: Stuart Beaton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As allowed under the Tunney Act, I wish to register my protest 
to the Proposed Final Judgement in the U.S. vs Microsoft case.
    The PFJ will do little to restrain the anti-competitive behavior 
of Microsoft. This company has shown its disdain of the courts in 
its non-compliance with previous court orders and in its behavior 
during this proceeding. The PFJ suffers from many faults; choosing 
one example would be that the PFJ places restrictions on how 
Microsoft licenses its products to OEMs, but not on how it licenses 
products to large users such as corporations, universities, and 
goverments, collectively referred to as ``enterprises''. 
Yet enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-processor 
licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 consent decree in the 
earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for 
each desktop or portable computer which could run a Microsoft 
operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft software is 
actually installed on the affected computer. These agreements are 
anticompetitive because they remove any financial incentive for 
individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft software.
    I urge all parties involved to reconsider the proposed 
settlement. Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for 
it's destructive abuse of it's monopoly power. More importantly, 
American consumers need to be protected against future abuses.
    Thank you for your time,
    Stuart Beaton
    Research Scientist
    ADA Technologies, Inc.
    8100 Shaffer Parkway, Suite 130
    Littleton, CO 80127



MTC-00016962

From: Hatton, Robert J

[[Page 26338]]

To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm concerned that the proposed agreement won't be enough to 
change the reality of Microsoft's domination of the industry. We 
need the kind of decisive action that was taken against AT&T to 
make a difference!
    Rob Hatton
    BillXchange Developer
    [email protected]
    310.333.2364



MTC-00016963

From: Brett Sanger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American citizen and computer user, I am opposed to the 
proposed settlement of the current Federal Microsoft antitrust case.
    I am a strong proponent of capitalism. History has proven that 
capitalism is the most effective way to create a strong industry 
that provides service for the consumer. History has also shown that 
capitalism fails if a company gains a monopoly in their industry, 
and focuses their efforts on crushing competition using methods 
OTHER than providing superior or more efficient service.
    Microsoft is just such a monopoly, and the courts have accepted 
that they have done exactly such actions. The proposed settlement 
does nothing to prevent them from continuing such actions. 
Microsoft's treatment of the 1995 consent decree and their actions 
in the courtroom show that they have little respect for such 
settlements. Since the proposed settlement would allow Microsoft to 
essentially choose their own definitions for certain terms, and has 
little in the way of enforcement, it will have little to effect in 
preventing their criminal actions.
    I cannot accept the proposed settlement as an effective remedy 
to the criminal acts that Microsoft has been found guilty of.



MTC-00016964

From: Jacoby, David
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm very concerned about the settlement, especially the 
requirements for opening the APIs. Those requirements don't seem to 
cover most of the Windows APIs, and would easily be sidestepped.
    Dave Jacoby
    [email protected]
    Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations 
problems.
    -Bruce Schneier



MTC-00016965

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement with Microsoft is inadequate to prevent 
them from continuing their illegal practices.
    John Traver



MTC-00016966

From: Jeb Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is bad.
    Force them to open office api's and windows api's to give people 
a choice. This is asking very little, they open the api's, we will 
do the hard part of coding replacements.
    Also no major distributor (Dell or Gateway), can sell computers 
that boot into Windows and another os because of their oem 
agreements. Microsoft's only punishment should be that they must 
compete-make them open the office and windows api's, and let 
major distributors sell linux and windows-and let consumers 
decide if they want to (they don't have a choice now) spend $400 
dollars a year to type a letter.
    Jeb Campbell
    Small business owner
    College student-Engineering major
    Concerned Citizen that Microsoft will not have to compete



MTC-00016967

From: Ben Rolling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think all of the settlements proposed so far in this case are 
lacking. Anything that lets Microsoft continue to use their monopoly 
to remove any fair competition (as they have continued to do 
throughout the course of this trial) is NOT good enough.
    Please don't settle until you find a punishment that fixes the 
problem.
    Thank you for your time.
    Ben Rolling
    Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00016968

From: Robert Melton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an application developer at the DC Metro Police Department. 
One of the things which the Proposed Final Judgment in United States 
v. Microsoft does not cover is file formats. This single omission 
makes the judgment weak.
    File formats are one of the driving forces trapping consumers 
with windows and removing their freedom of choice. It causes a 
chicken and egg problem. Your workplace can not switch away from 
Microsoft because it is what you have at home. You can not switch 
away from Microsoft because it is what you use at work. This cycle 
leaves consumers feeling trapped; they need Microsoft just to be 
able to function.
    If Microsoft file formats remain undocumented, third party 
developers will never be able to make a dent in their monopoly, and 
third party operating systems will never have a chance. Undocumented 
file formats create a much higher barrier to entry.
    Robert Melton
    2400 S. Glebe Road
    Arlington, VA, 22206



MTC-00016969

From: Trevin Beattie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While most of the text under section III, ``Prohibited 
Conduct'', looks good; I believe there are problems with some 
of the definitions listed in section VI. To wit:
    A: ``Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)'' is 
defined too narrowly by restricting it to those APIs used by 
Microsoft Middleware. The general definition of API is ``the 
interface (calling conventions) by which an application program 
accesses operating system and other services.'' In the context 
of the PFJ, the definition should apply to interfaces used by 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft middleware and applications.
    D: ``Covered OEMs'' does not cover all OEMs.
    J: The definition of ``major version'' is easily 
misconstrued; for example, a version number of 7.0.0 would not be 
considered a major version under the given definition. The major 
version number is the part of the number to the left of any decimal 
point. Therefore, a major version must be identified by a whole 
number or by the part of the number to the left of any decimal 
point.
    The version numbering of a product should not be used to 
determine whether that product constitutes Middleware.
    -Trevin Beattie
    930 N. Palm Avenue #238
    West Hollywood, CA 90069



MTC-00016970

From: Dan Willson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Fellow Americans at the Department of Justice:
    The proposed final judgement (PFJ) in the Microsoft antitrust 
case fails to prohibit anticompetitive license terms currently used 
by Microsoft. This is just one of many problems with the proposed 
settlement-other problems include but are not limited to the 
PFJ failing to prohibit anticompetitive practices towards OEM 
manufacturers, failing to prohibit intentional incompatibilities 
historically used by Microsoft, and the misleading and overly narrow 
definitions and provisions outlined in the PFJ.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. More importantly, the PFJ does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's past actions or redress their previous abuses.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source applications from running on the Windows platform. Open 
source software is the technological equivalent of free speech, so 
this is an area which must be addressed with regard to the 
Constitutional liberties of American citizens. All products should 
be given a fair chance to succeed in the marketplace-licensing 
terms currently used by Microsoft do not allow this to happen.
    EULAs (End User License Agreements) which absolve Microsoft of 
all liability are a

[[Page 26339]]

disgrace to the free enterprise system, as they leave users with no 
rights for products and/or services they have purchased with their 
hard earned money. Imagine if Ford and Firestone made computer 
software-both companies would be free from their 
responsibility in the rollover deaths attributed to the Ford 
Explorer incident. Imagine dining at a restaurant and getting food 
poisoning, only to discover that the establishment can not be 
penalized because there are no health and safety laws to protect the 
consumer from gross neglect. Now imagine that your small business 
has paid a king's ransom for Microsoft software and services, gets 
hacked and loses data (I.E. loses business) because of a security 
hole in the Microsoft software, but they can not gain financial 
restitution for goods and services they have purchased. Clearly 
there is a double-standard with the computer software industry when 
it is compared to other service industries. The PJF should take such 
matters into consideration and hold corporations like Microsoft 
accountable for their neglect, as they are providing a service. 
Microsoft's enterprise license agreements-those used by large 
corporations, state governments, and educational institutions charge 
by the number of computers which ``could'' run a Microsoft 
operating system-even computers running the open-source Linux 
or BSD-based operating systems.
    Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree. Clearly these are monopolistic tactics-how else could 
a corporation force their clients to purchase goods and/or services 
that are not necessary?
    Please take these points into consideration and reconsider how 
they affect the United States Constitution with regard to personal 
liberties. Computer software manufacturers should not be allowed to 
dictate the progress of this nation for the sake of their profit 
margins, all while hiding behind the facade of 
progress-allowing such practices to continue not only 
disregards the essential liberties of the typical American consumer, 
but disregards volumes of American legislation to curb monopolistic 
practices. The opinions expressed above are my own-with some 
assistance from the Web-based community of information-technology 
professionals-and does not represent the opinions of my 
employers. Thank you for your time.
    Daniel Willson
    Web Content Coordinator
    UAB Media Relations
    University of Alabama at Birmingham
    [email protected]
    (205) 975-2825
    http://www.uab.edu/news/



MTC-00016971

From: Leif Steinhour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi:
    I'm writing to let you know that I think the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement is a bad idea. There aren't any teeth in the proposal and 
I don't feel that it is in the public interest. There are lots of 
reasons for why I feel this way: you should read an excellent 
article at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#public-interest that describes some of the 
many ways the current proposal fails. To me it seems like a company 
that has violated numerous statutes (the Sherman Act among others) 
is going to walk away without any real punishment because the new 
settlement too narrowly defines the API's, has all kinds of holes in 
what Microsoft must disclose, etc.
    My vote is that you scuttle this proposed settlement.
    Let me know if you have any questions...



MTC-00016972

From: Paul V Gestwicki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please add mine to the myriad voices crying out against the 
proposed settlement. More time needs to be spent on creating a 
settlement that gives proper recompense to those who were hurt by 
Microsoft's previous actions.
    Thank you,
    Paul Gestwicki
    1525 Amherst Manor Dr, Apt 311
    Williamsville, NY 14221



MTC-00016973

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Being a casual observer of the Microsoft antitrust case over the 
past years, I have found at least one ,what I consider to be, 
extremely serious flaw in the proposed settlement. The settlement 
involves giving away micrisift products to schools, one of the very 
few markets Microsoft still has viable competiton in (by apple which 
they own a part of). Giving their product away in this manner will 
only serve to increase their monopoly in the operating systems 
market, by marrying their product to the national education system, 
by creating more, wider, exposure (and hence proficiency, and 
dependance) to the Microsoft products. Giving away ones product well 
below cost is an illegal tactic used by businesses to gain market 
dominance, and drive competitors out of business. Microsoft has used 
this tactic in the past to dominate the operating system and office 
suite market by providing extremely weak copy protection on their 
products ensuring that they could be easily copied and distributed 
by casual computer users to their friends. I do not find this a 
suitible punishment for a corporation convicted of violating 
antitrust laws. In my opinion, having microsoft purchase, and donate 
a competing product to the schools, or better yet, providing support 
for open source software in the public schools would do infinitely 
more to remedy the monopoly situation.
    In addition, due to recent laws making it illegal to reverse 
engineer a product like microsofts windows operating system (like 
was done with the IBM PC leading to the ``IBM 
Compatible''), I believe Microsoft should be forced to publish 
and ducument ALL of their API's to facilitate the production of a 
compatible, competing product that can run the same software 
applications on the same hardware.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Quinn
    Jim Quinn
    Getronics
    Desktop Support on site at
    Bayer Pharmaceuticals
    203.812.3097 PHONE
    203.812.3668 FAX
    [email protected] EMAIL
    (Embedded image moved to file:
    pic09931.gif)



MTC-00016974

From: Grant Hulbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the proposed Microsoft settlement for many reasons, 
but one of the biggest is that Microsoft charges large institutions 
site-licenses based on the number of machines that *could* run 
Windows, even if they happen to be running other operating systems 
like Linux. This in turn causes those large institutions to rethink 
their OS strategy, and in many cases they *require* all users to use 
Windows because ``Hey, we're already paying for it''. This 
is inherently anti-competetive.
    Grant Hulbert
    Director of Engineering
    Blue World Communications, Inc.
    
    ``bring business to the internet''



MTC-00016975

From: Lee Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed microsoft settlement as it is full of wide 
open gaps for Microsoft to further exploit their monopoly, and they 
will if history is any indication. Please consider this a vote 
against the current settlement, I believe it will harm both American 
businesses and American consumers and will hinder the development of 
competition and technological innovation. I would encourage the 
court to seek a solution that would try to re-level the playing 
field so unjustly tilted by Microsoft in all desktop PC software 
arenas (OS, office suites, media, communications, internet, and 
others) by enforcing a policy of open (to all) source-code and open 
(to all) standards in all of these areas, including file formats, 
interfaces, features, etc.
    Thank you.
    Dr Lee Nelson
    29 Sprague Rd
    Scarsdale NY



MTC-00016976

From: Kyle Hasselbacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I want to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    The PFJ supposedly forces Microsoft to publish its secret APIs, 
but the way it defines ``API'' is so narrow that there are 
many

[[Page 26340]]

important APIs that MS would not have to publish.
    Everything I've heard about the proposed settlement makes me 
think that it will make no difference to MS. They'll continue to 
play the same dirty tricks they always have, using loopholes like 
this one. Please settle this case in a way so that MS really does 
have to play fair in the future.
    Thank you for your time.
    Kyle Hasselbacher
    [email protected]



MTC-00016977

From: Steve Schiff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a technology professional, I have been following the 
Microsoft case in the news fairly closely. I am writing to express 
my deep dissatisfaction with the setllement of the case as it stands 
today.
    I believe that Microsoft wields near monopoly power through the 
monopoly of the desktop operating system, which they have extended 
to a monopoly on office applications, the browser, and now, through 
the .net initiative, to the very infrastructure of the Internet.
    Having been a party to many business planning sessions as a 
technology professional, I can tell you that it is tantamount to 
career suicide to propose writing end user applications to any 
platform except Windows. It is becoming increasingly difficult to 
propose infrastructure alternatives to windows in the data center.
    In my view, left inftact, Microsoft will eventually own the end 
to end application environment. This ownership will allow Microsoft 
to extend it's dominance to services albeit at a slower pace.
    While I believe a structural remedy to be the most productive 
resolution to the case, and one which would unlock the most 
shareholder value, I believe that an alternative exists, which is 
quite simple to enforce and to demand:
    Microsoft should be required to provide their applications and 
application services on a minimum of three alternative operating 
systems.
    This would have the effect of increasing acceptance and adoption 
of alternative operating system and processor options, and would in 
turn create an environment where alternative server operating system 
and applications could compete on a more level playing fiele.
    Please focus on this case. It is critical that the government do 
more than the present settlement to assure a competitive technology 
environment which will continue to secure the US dominant role in 
technology innovation.
    Regards,
    Steve Schiff



MTC-00016978

From: Ricky Musci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/20 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the current Microsoft settlement in no way deals with the 
problems of their monopoly. This is barely even a light slap on the 
wrist. As an American, I care about quality in the products I use. 
Microsofts total dominance in a number of fields gives them a 
license to ignore quality. They have no competition, so they have no 
need to improve their products. Please reconsider the Microsoft 
settlement.
    It ignores the consumer and feeds an unreliable company.
    Ricky Musci
    System Administrator
    The Nautilus Institute
    (510) 295-6119



MTC-00016979

From: Howard, Chris
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally think the Microsoft antitrust proposed settlement 
does not go far enough in it's attempts to limit future monopolistic 
activity, or even current monopolistic activity, by Microsoft.
    This may or may not be the position of my employer... I haven't 
asked them.
    Chris Howard
    CIS Database Administrator
    Platte River Power Authority
    (970) 229 5248



MTC-00016980

From: John Ivory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that there's a lot more than a single anti-trust 
issue at stake; it's the general faith that people can or should put 
in their government.
    If Microsoft is allowed to walk away with the minimal sanctions 
and punishment that have been proposed, it will be an injustice on a 
scale similar to the crimes of Enron against it's employees and 
stockholders.
    Please, look at the facts here, and not the spin generated by 
people on Microsoft's payroll. They abused their monopoly, and will 
have every inclination to continue doing so.
    I've been a software engineer for 20+ years. I've started two 
succesful software companies. I'm not some young hacker. Microsoft 
is a wart on our industry. Please take action.
    Thank you,
    John Ivory
    Integrated Sensors
    http://www.sensors.com
    [email protected]
    315-798-1377
    CC:John Ivory



MTC-00016981

From: Michael Bowen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:19pm
Subject: the proposed settlement between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft
    Greetings,
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement between the 
Justice Department and Microsoft.
    The proposed settlement does not adequately address the damage 
that Microsoft has done to the computing industry. For example, the 
definition of an API is too narrow. In order for there to be a level 
playing field, all of APIs of the Windows operating system must be 
completely documented. This way, Microsoft will not have an unfair 
advantage over third party vendors who wish to write applications. 
The settlement also fails to address file formats. It is very 
important that Microsoft releases information about its currently 
undocumented file formats (like word documents ``.doc''). 
Microsoft has an unfair advantage over third party vendors when 
writing office software because these vendors can only guess when it 
comes to reading or writing word documents, excel spreadsheets, and 
others.
    I feel that the settlement should be reworked, so that it will 
prevent Microsoft from engaging in any more monopoly practices.
    Thank you,
    Michael Bowen
    software engineer at St. Jude Medical
    Sunnyvale, CA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016982

From: Dexter C. Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern-
    I am a United States citizen, and have been a frequent computer 
user since 1985. Over time, because of Microsoft's increasing 
monopoly of the marketplace, I have found it increasingly difficult 
to conduct my daily necessary business without resorting to 
Microsoft products (which are often poorly coded and insecure when 
compared with competing software). This is mostly because of 
Microsoft's well-documented monopolistic business practices, as well 
as incompatibilites (intentionally created by Microsoft) between its 
software and that of most other software and operating systems, as 
well as earlier versions of Windows. By now, it is literally 
impossible for me to communicate with anyone else in my workplace, 
or most others, without using Microsoft products (since Microsoft 
now has an effective monopoly with the ``office suite'' 
class of applications: in the case of Microsoft these include Word, 
Excel, Outlook, Entourage, and Powerpoint).
    I feel that the proposed Justice Department settlement does not 
adequately redress the wrongs committed by Microsoft, for it does 
not sufficiently prohibit future abuses, nor does it offer remedy to 
the end user for previously committed infractions. I respectfully 
ask that it be reconsidered.
    Sincerely,
    Dexter Palmer
    24 Quarry St.
    Princeton, NJ 08542



MTC-00016983

From: Tom Termini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-break up the company
    As an Apple developer, I support a settlement that is fair and 
results in undoing

[[Page 26341]]

the damage done by Microsoft's illegal actions in the marketplace. 
Obviously the impact on the internet by MS's illegal tying of IE has 
limited choice, stiffled innovation, and slowed the spread of the 
beneficial technological resources engendered by the net.
    As far as a critical BROADBAND resource being adversely 
impacted, Apple's QUICKTIME digital video technology has been shut 
out by MS's on-going efforts to dominate this niche.
    In the area of education users, the proposed (and now rejected) 
settlement where MS would donate software to schools would have just 
improved MS's hold on an important market niche.
    We struggle every day to educate potential customers about the 
pitfalls of a MS-only environment. The company has been unfair and 
used their (derived from illegal monopoly revenues) warchest to lock 
out open competition and eliminate choice. We can see from the 
security issues surrounding MS that having no choice doesn't just 
cost consumers more money-it also opens the door to malicious 
and potentially huge damage from miscreants.
    Ubique,
    Tom Termini
    BlueDog
    http://www.bluedog.net



MTC-00016984

From: nikhil dhruva tilwalli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:27pm
Subject: On the Proposed Final Judgement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    In accordance with the Tunney Act I am submitting my opinions on 
the proposed government settlement with Microsoft in regards to the 
pending anti-trust case.
    I am firmly opposed to the current proposed settlement term in 
the Microsoft case. The terms do no fully redress the actions 
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor their ability to commit 
similar or anti-competitive actions in the future.
    Many of the provisions in the current settlement will not 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. In view of Microsoft 
history of anti-comptetitive practices correcting this is vitally 
important.
    A few issues that have been brought to my attention are:
    1) The settlement does not take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems. Microsoft increases the Applications 
Barrier to Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the settlement fails to prohibit this, and 
even contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    2) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License 
Terms currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source applications from 
running on Windows.
    3) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft. Microsoft has in 
the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in its applications 
to keep them from running on competing operating systems.
    4) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs. The current settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate 
against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing 
Operating System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Please refer to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html for 
other issues that must be addressed for the settlement to be fair 
and equitable to all interested parties.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. I implore you to look into these and the other 
issues before before pursuing closure on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Nikhil Tilwalli
    Assistant to the Dean
    College of Engineering
    University of Illinois, Urbana



MTC-00016985

From: Bruce E. Birch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the rate of technological growth has been retarded 
due to Microsofts illegal Monopolistic practices. Competition 
promotes growth and is one of the more important attributes to the 
U.S. Microsofts crimes have had a profound negative impact on how we 
know and utilize technology. This effect will continue to happen if 
the settlement is not as profound. I feel the proposed remedy will 
not effectively promote fair business practices and competition.
    Technology is our future, and to trust our future with one 
establishment will be disasterous. Please re-evaluate with our 
future in mind.
    Thank you
    Bruce E. Birch
    U.S. Citizen, Information Systems Administrator, Open Source 
Software Advocate



MTC-00016986

From: Tim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-BAD!
    The terms of the settlement that the DOJ reached with Microsoft 
are BAD! MS has proven they will not respect the spirit of any court 
decree, and will bend and push the letter of that decree until there 
are enough loopholes to let them continue with business as usual.
    MS has built a huge pile of cash reserves, mostly on the back of 
the consumers who were the victims of the monopoly MS built. If I 
robbed a bank and invested the money, I wouldn't get to keep the 
interest when I was caught. Thus, I think extremely heavy fines are 
needed to show that crime does not pay. Something in the 10, 20,30 
billion dollar range would do nicely.
    Finally, one of the biggest impediments to anyone competing with 
MS is the totally hidden nature of file formats for things like 
Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint, Windows Media Player, etc. MS 
continually changes and manipulates these formats, so anyone 
attempting to interoperate with MS formats is always behind. Please 
require MS to completely and totally document *every* file format, 
*every* communications protocol and *every* API, and divulge to the 
public that documentation with no licensing requirements, and to 
publish changes at least 6 months in advance, so that other 
companies can have a chance to update their products to work with 
the new format. Do NOT leave any loophole that would allow MS to not 
disclose something for ``security'' reasons-if a 
protocol is insecure because someone knows how it works, then it's 
not really secure at all. Truly secure protocols are widely 
reviewed, and withstand public scrutiny without any problems.
    As a member of the IT industry, I feel very deeply that MS's 
illegal tactics have harmed the industry and reduced innovation. The 
rise of Free Software such as Linux as the only real viable 
competitors to MS show how MS have poisoned the commercial software 
industry.
    Thank you for your time,
    Tim Wasson
    1620 Vallejo Drive
    Hollister, CA 95023



MTC-00016987

From: Payne Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the 
American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities.
    I do not think that the proposed settlement is strong enough to 
serve this function.
    Best regards,
    H. Payne Simpson, III
    1232 W. Boxelder Circle
    Chandler, AZ 85224



MTC-00016988

From: Andrew James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the

[[Page 26342]]

current proposed settlement does not fully redress the actions 
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their ability to 
commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew I. James
    University of Florida
    [email protected]



MTC-00016989

From: Jake Donham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:29pm
Subject: comment on proposed Microsoft judgment
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Microsoft uses its monopoly power to limit competitors'' 
access to the market, and the consumer software industry is 
stagnating because of lack of competition.
    The proposed judgment against Microsoft fails to redress its 
past abuse of monopoly power and fails to prevent future abuse. The 
judgment draws many provisions misleadingly or too narrowly, 
providing numerous loopholes by which Microsoft can continue its 
anti-competitive practices.
    A fair judgment would open up all aspects of the consumer 
software market to competition, by forcing Microsoft to publish all 
APIs and file or document formats of any kind, and allowing users 
and OEMs to replace any part of the Microsoft software.
    Sincerely,
    Jake Donham
    194 Adelphi St #1
    Brooklyn, NY 11205



MTC-00016990

From: Travis Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a citizen of the United States of America, I feel that the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case is unacceptable. 
Much more must be done to ensure that the abuses Microsoft has 
commited and contiunes to commit are stopped. As a citizen of 
Minnesota, I am proud that my state is leading the way in this 
continued fight for survival. Please look at the facts, consult the 
experts, ignore all their money and influence, and finally, DO THE 
RIGHT THING!
    Travis Anderson
    Full-time Student
    Part-time Land Surveyor
    809 5th St. NE
    Minneapolis, MN 55413
    [email protected]



MTC-00016991

From: Rez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a joke, as anyone in the computing 
field knows. Microsoft gets to grab yet another monopoly market 
(schools) at NO REAL COST TO THEMSELVES. This is hardly a punishment 
or restriction - it's an enhancement to MS's existing market 
monopoly!!
    Please STOP this bogus settlement from going through. It hurts 
consumers AND it hurts MS shareholders, who must bear the losses 
when MS's image goes into the toilet from being allowed to be the 
800 lb. gorilla.
    K.V. Moffet
    comuter tech, registered voter, and MS shareholder



MTC-00016992

From: Jeremy Sparks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a Systems Programmer for Willamette University in Salem 
Oregon, I have worked recently to create a Windows 2000/XP login 
client (or GINA) that would be able to authenticate against our 
existing LDAP directory. The process, was overly obtuse and time 
consuming primarily because the API's used by Windows are not 
available and their example source code (at least with regard to my 
project) does not work. I think it is clear that Microsoft wants to 
give the appearance that it allows third party programmers to extend 
it's operating systems without actually giving them the ability to 
do so. The final result of my work does not extend Windows 2000 as I 
had hoped and in fact must add a security risk to our existing 
Windows systems in order to work at all. Instead my work must 
necessarily rely on the existing Windows login dll (msgina.dll) to 
interface with the operating system.
    Given that I have first hand experience, I wish to offer my 
opinion that any remedy which does not give programmers access to 
the information they need, specifically Windows system APIs, only 
allows Microsoft to leverage it's operating system to gain 
monopolies in other areas. In my example they are making it 
difficult for us to continue to use our existing Unix based servers 
with their Windows desktop computers. Moreover it is rumored that 
they intend to remove SMB file sharing from future Windows operating 
systems. If this happens, and the APIs are not opened, we will have 
NO CHOICE but to use Microsoft server software. This is not right. I 
oppose any settlement which allows Microsoft to force companies and 
universities to use their software.
    Jeremy C. Sparks-Willamette University
    phone:503-370-6016/fax: 503-375-5456
    Systems Programmer-Network Services Consultant
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00016993

From: Ross Youngblood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned that the DOJ settlement will not be good for the 
technical development community in the US. Companies attempting to 
produce compatable operating systems or bridges from Mirosoft to 
other operating systems are not protected from retaliation by 
Microsoft.
    Ross Youngblood
    480-917-1432
    Applications Engineer
    [email protected]
    Credence Systems Corporation
    Chandler, Az



MTC-00016994

From: Anand Srivastava
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomsoever it may concern,
    I am against this settlement.
    I am actually against the very idea of settling with the guilty 
party. The guilty party must be given punishment. I don't why the 
judge even asked for a forced settlement. The judges job must be to 
find a remedy, not a settlement.
    The judge must do what was done against AT&T. Microsoft must 
be broken into several parts. At least as many parts as neccesary to 
bring its monopoly to a manageable level.
    Or their should be penalty, and criminal liability. They have 
already breached courts orders.
    How can they be let go without giving adequate punishment. The 
punishment must be severe, some percentage of their revenue must go 
as fine. They should have a review every year and if found guilty 
their income should be confiscated. There is no possibility that any 
settlement can be fair to the public.
    thanks,
    -anand



MTC-00016995

From: Easton Beymer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I AGREE with the terms of the Microsoft-DOJ settlement. 
Lets get this wrapped up!



MTC-00016996

From: Eric Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26343]]

    I'm not so sure if the proposed microsoft settlement is such a 
good idea. I don't think that it will effectively redistribute the 
gains which microsoft has acquired through it's successful use of 
unfair monoply powers. It is apparent from the final judgement and 
the various pieces of evidence show that it will be difficult for 
any company or organization to compete against microsoft as long as 
it's ``pushing it's weight around''. Additionally, no 
reference is made to casual groups in the final judgement. The Open 
Source community is the only group which is currently a major 
competetor with Microsoft(AIM, Linux, BSD, Netscape/Mozilla), yet 
they are not mentioned(and apparently given no rights) under the 
final judgement. Microsoft API's and standards should be open for 
ALL programmers who want to produce a product that will be 
compatible with Microsoft programers, not just those who want to 
make a profit off that product. I was disappointed that the expected 
term of the final judgement was shorter than the trial which created 
it. I feel that 10 years(if not indefinately until microsoft losses 
it's Operating System Monopoly) is more suiting and would give the 
industry enough time to recoup from microsofts stranglehold. With 
opposition and honest,
    Eric Carter
    Voting U.S. Citizen of California,
    Currently representing the U.S. in Germany as a Congress-
Bundestag Student Ambassador.



MTC-00016997

From: itzdandy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    The public voice, which includes mine, knows that any settlement 
without significant changes in the company of Micosoft Anti-trust 
suit is unacceptable. It will damage any and all competition for 
desktop operating systems because it will allow Microsoft to 
continue is anti-competative actions.
    thank you for your time.
    Daniel C Denson



MTC-00016998

From: Don Atkinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is flawed. I don't have the time or 
fortitude to wade through the entire body of documents related to 
this case, but in order for the settlement to be meaningful and 
enforcable, Microsoft must be obligated to fully document all file 
formats and programming interfaces required to integrate products 
with any and all present and future versions of all of their 
software.
    I develop software professionally. I know how difficult it is to 
coordinate with cooperating team members on complicated products. 
Anything short of full disclosure on Microsoft's part will allow 
them to maintain the fruits of their anti-competitive practices 
through delay and obfuscation tactics.
    Philosophically, I'm a Libertarian, and question whether this 
should be in court at all. I am not an anti-Microsoft zealot, but 
over the past few years, I have become fed up with the restrictions 
that Microsoft places on the competetive environment, and if we are 
going to pretend to enforce a competitive market place through 
legislation and court rulings, let's get to the point.
    An anecdote:
    Our company recently had a number of laptops stolen. When 
placing an order with Dell to replace the machines, we made our 
decision on which model to purchase based on Dell's refusal to ship 
certain models without a specific Windows OS version. Some of our 
users are developers who work under Linux and have no need for a 
Windows operating system at all. Our business is wasting time and 
energy dealing with restrictions enforced by Microsoft and its 
weight in the industry. Since much of our development is done under 
government contract, this amounts to a waste of tax dollars.



MTC-00016999

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dir Sir or Madam:
    I have a simple point to make regarding Microsoft's business 
practices. Microsoft is comprised of three distinct entities: 
Programming languages, applications and operating systems. It is 
extremely clear that Microsoft has made business decisions that 
affected the internal structure of their software to the detriment 
of consumers and competition that they would not have made, were 
each of these entities separate. If you need further explanation or 
documentation, please feel free to respond to this e-mail.
    Thank you for your time.
    Andrew Hofer



MTC-00017000

From: Ken Kirchner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello ladies and gentlemen,
    I would like to add my voice to those who are displeased with 
the current proposed settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft is so 
large and diversified they can easily assimilate any sector of the 
software market they want. As it was clearly demonstrated in the 
Internet Explorer versus Netscape Navigator war, you cant compete 
against a company that can afford to give away its product longer 
than you can. Microsoft's pockets are too deep for any new software 
company to try and assault. Microsoft's interpretation of innovation 
is buying other companies that have innovative products (ex: Visio) 
instead of producing their own. They are definately the 300 pound 
gorilla of the industry.
    As far as proposed solutions, I am afraid I dont have the sure-
fire solution, but I think forcing them to offer free access to 
their current and future data structures (Microsoft Office 
documents, Visio files, etc) would at least prevent them from 
shutting out other software companies by hiding behind proprietary 
file formats. I'm sure this suggestion needs more scrutiny than I 
have given it. I think software purchases should be judged on how 
efficeintly and effortlessly it manipulates your data, not what 
format it saves it in.
    Ken Kirchner : [email protected]
    Assistant System Administrator : Tel (318)222-2638
    ShreveNet, Inc. : Fax (318)213-2650
    ShreveNet-Your Premium Internet Service Provider!



MTC-00017001

From: Chris J. Harmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00017002

From: Dave Polenychko
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is too narrowly worded as to have any 
real effect on the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft.
    David Polenychko
    2443 Hinge
    Troy, MI 48083
    248-689-5947



MTC-00017003

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hail!
    I am an engineer supporting a US Air Force project. Our group 
uses MS-DOS on a system for the Air Force and Windows on our main 
server and desktops. One print server runs Linux and my own desktop 
dual-boots Windows and Linux.
    It is my understanding that the Government is considering a 
settlement that would compel Microsoft to open it's application 
interfaces to commercial competitors. Great as it sounds, this 
leaves out two important entities, the US Government and non-
commercial competitors. If the government, or a hospital, requires 
software that can be reviewed by a large group to ensure that it is 
defect-free, such as that protecting nuclear materials or keeping 
people alive, that should be a possibility available to us.
    The current plausible threats to Microsoft are Linux and BSD. 
The Government already contributes to these; most of the network 
drivers were written by a NASA employee. The government already uses 
Linux and BSD in many places where Windows is cost prohibitive and 
the programmers need access to the source code. This access is a 
very important component. Presumably, Microsoft's source code is 
going to be protected as a trade secret. It's widely known that 
little of it was ever Microsoft's, so they need to keep it secret to 
stay out of jail. Anyhow, the application interfaces have to be open 
in order for anybody to write a program that communicates with 
Microsoft's products. Releasing them to a commercial competitor 
might've been useful 20 years ago,

[[Page 26344]]

but today, these have to be available to the U.S. Government and the 
the Open Source (Linux, BSD) community.
    The course before us now is a straight, short path to 
dictatorship. Already, the licenses for Microsoft Frontpage and 
Microsoft Internet Information Server (commonly IIS) forbid thier 
use in disparaging Microsoft. If the alternatives to these are lost, 
as this settlement offers, Bill Gates could run for president and be 
unopposed; it would be illegal to suggest that another person could 
better fill that position. Once in place, any suggestions that Mr. 
Gates had about changing the way laws are made, interpreted and 
enforced would immediately become law; it would be illegal to 
suggest that Democracy is better than dictatorship.
    Microsoft's arguments that they had to shut down Netscape, IBM, 
Borland, etc. as a matter of survival are reminiscent of Hitler's 
1924 arguments that if he didn't start eliminating Jews he'd have to 
compete with them for food, clothing and shelter. Microsoft's 
arguments that they can't work within any consent decree with the 
government because they need freedom to innovate ignore the fact 
that Microsoft's last innovation was to offer the best 
implementation of BASIC for the CP/M operating system in the late 
seventies. Everything else that Microsoft has sold since then was 
invented outside of Microsoft, usually by a company with less than 
fifty employees. I could agree to Microsoft being free with it's 
innovations; they can make and sell BASIC interpeters for other 
people's operating systems forever; I won't begrudge them a nickel 
that they earned legitimately.
    Good luck,
    -Mark



MTC-00017004

From: David J Brumley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the microsoft settlement. Anything that leaves 
the company in tact will ultimately lead to future illegal activity. 
Remember, microsoft was found guilty of illegally using a monopoly. 
This means to me that in fact they have a monopoly and have 
maniuplated it to great profit. Any settlement that does not realize 
microsoft has made an effort to do things that are illegal and must 
be curtailed immediately is not acceptable.
    For example, here at Stanford we use kerberos for authenticating 
our computers. MIT does likewise. When we wanted to encorporated 
Windows 2000 into our domain, we found they had changed the standard 
subtley so Microsoft software worked with our current infrastructure 
if we used microsoft servers. Never mind we had unix servers that 
never crashed and previously worked fine.
    Microsoft will push the competitive edge until there are no more 
competitors. This is american business. American law dictates that 
these activites be checked, and curtailed when necessary. Please do 
something to curtail the current activity as well as future anti-
trust violations.
    Signed,
    david brumley
    David Brumley
    650.723.2445



MTC-00017005

From: Jonathan Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the proposed settlement. Microsoft has too much 
power in the computer industry. I would like to see a settlement 
where all of their API's are published, also their ever changing 
file formats in Word, Excel, Access.
    Jonathan Miller
    Spokane, WA



MTC-00017006

From: Matthew L Daniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition. The finding of 
fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict 
measures which address not only the practices they have engaged in 
in the past, but which also prevent them from engaging in other 
monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Thank you,
    Matthew L Daniel,
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Matthew L Daniel
    Director of Technology,
    Still Current Development, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00017007

From: kpayne (w)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
Microsoft AntiTrust settlement. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist 
who deserves to be punished. They have used their monopoly in 
certain markets (operating system, web browser, office productivity 
suite) to extend their grasp into other markets (internet services, 
video game consoles). Microsoft has demonstrated that they do not 
intend to stop this behavior. I ask that you reconsider the proposed 
settlement for one that better protects the public.
    Thank you,
    Kerry Payne



MTC-00017008

From: David Dolinar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement proposed is a VERY BAD IDEA. Microsoft 
should not be allowed to integrate anything with their OS unless 
*ALL* of their API's are forced open & other software companies 
can integrate their products to the same degree as MS's software. 
OEMs should also be able to package this other software integrated 
with Windows & the computers they distribute.
    - David Dolinar



MTC-00017009

From: Mike Bednowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement.
    Michael Bednowicz
    881 Ford Avenue
    Elgin, IL 60120



MTC-00017010

From: Andrew Ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to the mountain of concern 
regarding the proposed settlement with Microsoft. While I have 
significant concerns about all aspects of the proposal, there are 
two which deeply trouble me. I am the Systems Administrator for a 
small non-profit arts organisation of 65 employees. Out of 
necessity, we work in a very mixed environment of Windows and 
Macintosh computers, with a few Unix boxes thrown in for good 
measure. We use Open Source and GPL software on our servers because 
these licenses allow us to be able to afford the tools required to 
seamlessly pass documents between all our environments using a tool 
called Samba.
    The other day, I read this on the Samba team's development site.
    The settlement states:
    ``E. Starting nine months after the submission of this 
proposed Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available 
for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating 
with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any 
Communications Protocol that is, on or after the date this Final 
Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented in a Windows 
Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) 
used to interoperate natively (i.e., without the addition of 
software code to the client or server operating system products) 
with Windows 2000 Server or products marketed as its successors 
installed on a server computer. `` Sounds good for Samba, 
doesn't it. However, in the ``Definition of terms'' 
section it states :
    ``Communications Protocol'' means the set of rules for 
information exchange to

[[Page 26345]]

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. These 
rules govern the format, semantics, timing, sequencing, and error 
control of messages exchanged over a network. Communications 
Protocol shall not include protocols used to remotely administer 
Windows 2000 Server and products marketed as its successors. `` 
If Microsoft is allowed to be the interpreter of this document, then 
it could be interpreted in a very broad sense to explicitly exclude 
the SMB/CIFS protocol and all of the Microsoft RPC calls needed by 
any SMB/CIFS server to adequately interoperate with Windows 2000. 
They would claim that these protocols are used by Windows 2000 
server for remote administration and as such would not be required 
to be disclosed. In that case, this settlement would not help 
interoperability with Microsoft file serving one bit, as it would be 
explicitly excluded.
    We would hope that a more reasonable interpretation would allow 
Microsoft to ensure the security of its products, whilst still being 
forced to fully disclose the fundamental protocols that are needed 
to create interoperable products.''
    The Samba team's concerns seem well founded to me. Were Samba to 
be stopped in development, our day to day operations would be 
significantly hampered. Additionally, there would be a significant 
impact on our budget as are unable to afford commercial tools that 
perform as well as Samba does. Indeed, we have yet to find a 
commercial tool that offers the same quality that Samba does.
    My second concern involves those aspects of the proposal that 
entail Microsoft ``giving away'' millions in software and 
hardware to educational institutions. That this proposal isn't seen 
as simply ludicrous is beyond me. Surely Microsoft's lawyers must be 
wringing their hands with glee at the prospect of indoctrinating 
young minds to the ``Microsoft way'' at so young an age. 
Simply put, this is akin to allowing Coke to supply free sugar water 
beverages to kindergarten. It's a cynical attempt to grab mindshare, 
nothing more.
    Additionally, you do the educational institutions no favour. 
Why? Because those machines as they degrade over 12 months, will 
eventually become unusable and require maintenance. Without suitably 
trained staff and available Systems Administrators, the computers 
and the software are nothing more than time wasters, requiring hours 
of tinkering by non-technical staff in order to make them actually 
work. You're dooming the English teacher to trouble shooting the 
broken WindowsXP box in the corner because few school boards have 
the Systems Administrator resources to keep the machines up and 
running all the time.
    Surely this aspect of the proposal must be seen for what it is: 
a hollow advertising scheme, propped up with assets that will cost 
Microsoft nothing (but which will undoubtedly be written off in the 
following tax year), assets that will suck the already limited 
resources of local school boards dry.
    Please, reject the proposal.
    Andrew Ball [email protected]
    Systems Ringmaster / Technology Sherpa
    ACT Theatre
    700 Union St.
    Seattle, WA 98101
    (206) 292-7660 x1337 voice
    (206) 292-7670 fax



MTC-00017011

From: Rodney Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement -against
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. You have been bamboozled by techno-talk. The 
defininitions are too loose. Microsoft will wiggle free as if there 
was no ``settlement''. Why sign a ``settlement'' 
when it will settle nothing and achieve no lasting effects? 
Attorneys may disagree with me, but I am a software developer active 
in the retail software industry for the last 12 years. I see the 
effects of predatory behavior, disrepect for other's IP rights, and 
restrictive OEM agreements that prevent alternatives from seeing a 
level playing field.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's 
previous actions. There are no provisions that correct or redress 
their previous abuses. They only intend to prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. And poorly at that. Where is the 
punishment for lying in court? Where is the oversight with teeth? 
Where are monetary relationships broken? Trimmed and tweaked is what 
I see, not substantially changed. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. Open my industry!
    Sincerely,
    Rodney Smith
    19451 SE 57th Place
    Issaquah, WA, 98027



MTC-00017012

From: Bob Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgement on Microsoft is too lenient. 
Microsoft has repeatedly engaged in criminally monopolistic 
activity, and it needs a judgement severe enough that it will be 
dissuaded from more criminal behavior in the future.
    The proposed final judgement is too narrow. It treats specific 
symptoms, some of which are already obsolete, but it does not attack 
the root of the problem. It should restrict Microsoft's ability to 
use its PC monopoly to enter new markets, but it does not. It should 
restrict Microsoft's ability to shut out competing software vendors 
in the PC market by requiring Microsoft to release API information 
well before software using those APIs is released, but it does not. 
It should specify how it will be enforced, with Microsoft bearing 
the burden of proving it is not abusing its monopoly powers, but it 
does not.
    Most importantly, Microsoft should be prohibited from 
discriminating against open source software. Microsoft should be 
required to make its APIs available to the public, not just to 
licensees. Microsoft should be specifically prohibited from 
licensing any of its products in ways that exclude open source 
software.
    The proposed final judgement is not justice. It's barely a slap 
on the wrist.
    Bob Miller K
    kbobsoft software consulting
    http://kbobsoft.com [email protected]



MTC-00017013

From: Michael Enos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am opposed the current MicroSoft Settlement for many reasons. 
As the President and CEO of a Financial Services company, we have 
built leading edge technology COMPLETELY on open source platforms 
(Linux, Postgres, Samba, GNU compilers and utilities, TCL, Python, 
MySQL, PHP, Apache, etc.).
    We have achieved processing speeds that exceed ALL Microsoft 
applications and most mainframe applications. We were recently 
purchased for many times earnings by a multi-billion dollar payment 
processor because of our processing capabilities. Microsoft 
applications would have never worked. We know this because be gave 
it a valiant attempt but gave up.
    The Federal Reserve has also shown interest in our applications 
and we are currently preparing a proposal for the Feds. The Justice 
Department must not allow Microsoft to continue to monopolize the 
computing industry. We expect the Justice Department to represent 
those of us pioneering technologies in real world applications.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me.
    Michael Enos
    Michael L. Enos, President
    H.I.S. Financial Services Corporation
    102 South Tejon Street, Suite 920
    Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
    Ph. (719) 633-7005 / Fax (719) 633-7006
    Premier Electronic Check Processing Services



MTC-00017014

From: Damon A. Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I find that the entire scope and promise of Microsoft's OS 
(Windows) to be that as a platform of functionality and control for 
a computer terminal. While Microsoft has chosen to add services 
provided by their internal development process or acquired from 
outside sources, they have also chosen a deliberate path to directly 
confront and destroy other equal opportunity developments, either 
through acquisition or pure malice. The Halloween documents should 
attest to the blatent malcontrived view of the intelligence and 
faith of the consumers, and further, the monopolistic instinct of 
the Microsoft Corporation. Please consider this e-mail to be a 
formal complaint

[[Page 26346]]

of the proposed settlement-let unfettered justice be served.
    Damon Andrew Brown
    Alexandria, VA



MTC-00017015

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to submit my opinion that the proposed settlement 
of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit is NOT in the public interest. I 
believe it leaves far too much leeway for Microsoft to continue and 
even extend their illegal activities, particularly with regard to 
Independent Software Vendors (ISVs).
    Please feel free to contact me if additional details would be 
helpful.
    Best Regards,
    Peter J. Harbeson
    3 Victor Road
    Hampton, NH 03842
    Peter J. Harbeson
    Nokia Research Center, Boston
    XML Knowledge Center
    781.993.5774 desk
    603.264.0027 mobile



MTC-00017016

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft antitrust case settlement is 
inappropriate and should not be accepted.
    Sincerely,
    Jordan Peterson
    Network Administrator II
    IT Support Services
    De La Rue Cash Systems, Inc.
    920-206-6800
    [email protected]



MTC-00017017

From: Matthew Sahr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the Proposed Final Judgement Section VI:
    Definitions, several definitions allow Microsoft too great a 
latitude to continue its monopolistic practices.
    Definition K: ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
Definition K defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' to 
mean essentially Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), 
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook 
Express (OE).
    The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET is 
questionable; Microsoft has essentially designated Microsoft.NET and 
C# as the successors to Java, so on that basis one would expect 
Microsoft.NET to be included in the definition. The inclusion of 
Outlook Express and not Outlook is questionable, as Outlook 
(different and more powerful than Outlook Express) is a more 
important product in business, and fits the definition of middleware 
better than Outlook Express.
    The exclusion of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many 
components of Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition 
of middleware. For instance, there is an active market in software 
written to run on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and 
many applications are developed for Microsoft Access by people who 
have no knowledge of Windows APIs. In total, Definition K is too 
narrow. The Findings of Fact ( 28) define ``middleware'' 
to mean application software that itself presents a set of APIs 
which allow users to write new applications without reference to the 
underlying operating system. The definitions used in the Final 
Judgement should reflect common usage and be consistent with the 
Findings of Fact.
    Matthew Sahr
    [email protected]



MTC-00017018

From: Richard Kiss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:33pm
Subject: Opposition to Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, anything short of break-up is a slap on the wrist 
to Microsoft. This company has shown time and time again that it 
regards agreements with anyone-including the 
government-to be convenient mechanisms to serve itself while 
continuing to apply illegal pressure through monopolistic tactics 
against hardware vendors and engaging in inappropriate and illegal 
bundling to serve its own ends. Microsoft's agreement to settlement 
is evidence enough that the settlement is toothless-after all, 
this is a company that, to this day, has maintained that it has done 
nothing wrong, disagreeing with the finding of fact that it is a 
monopoly that has broken the law. I oppose the proposed settlement 
agreement in its current form, and support the effort of the nine 
dissenting states. Look at what happened after the 1995 agreement. 
Microsoft immediately started to brag that it would not change their 
behavior one bit, and then immediately began to prove it.
    Richard Kiss
    [email protected]
    H: 408-481-9621
    W: 650-559-1010



MTC-00017019

From: Ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe that the proposed antitrust settlement is in the 
public interest.
    Given the fact that the Microsoft has been convicted of 
monopolistic behavior, with that conviction upheld on appeal, any 
settlement should effectively control that behavior. Instead, this 
settlement allows Microsoft to continue to leverage their operating 
system monopoly into unrelated sectors. It allows most of their 
anticompetitive behavior to continue unabated. It also ignores 
Microsoft's behavior with respect to previous scantions.
    The settlement is so flawed that I cannot simply suggest changes 
that would fix it. It's so favorable to Microsoft that they might as 
well have written it themselves. My suggestion is to throw the 
entire settlement out let the court decide the appropriate 
sanctions.
    Ronald Tansky



MTC-00017020

From: Burhman Gates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    The proposed consent final judgment for USA versus Microsoft 
will be an ineffective remedy for the abuse of Microsoft's monopoly 
power. If a remedy is to be composed to prevent the abuse of 
Micrsoft's monopoly, then the remedy must address Microsoft's means 
of maintaining their monopoly, extending their monopoly, and abusing 
their monopoly power. Specifically, Microsoft should be compelled 
to:
-Open their file formats (an important tool in maintaining and 
extending their monopoly)
-Publish communication protocols between objects embedded in 
office productivity documents
-Interoperate with other vendors (they punish any of their 
customers who attempt to use other vendors) This is not a complete 
list of needed remedies. Also, the proposed consent final judgment 
doesn't do anything to punish Microsoft for their crime. Please 
accomodate the American public and punish Microsoft and make a 
meaningful remedy to their means of extending, maintaining, and 
abuse of their monopoly.
    Burhman Gates
    Vicksburg, Mississippi
    Electronics Engineer
    Small computer store / consulting firm owner



MTC-00017021

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current version of the settlement scheme is 
not in the best interest of the Public. Many Definitions of terms 
are ambiguous or straightforwardly directly beneficial to Microsoft. 
I think it should be taken under review further, and clarifications 
made on certain points. Obviously, if Microsoft has done this in the 
past (i.e, Caldera in the 90's) they will continue to do it in the 
future.
    Intent should also be looked at. Obvioiusly, their intentions 
are to go as far as they can ``within the law'' without 
actually breaking the law. Well, they broke it, and should pay the 
consequences. But their outlook on the whole thing has not changed. 
their intentions are the same. They just have to be even more 
devious now.
    Jorden R. Kleier
    IT Support Specialist

[[Page 26347]]



MTC-00017022

From: rederin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:32pm
Subject: proposed microsoft settlement
    I vote NO! to the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate 
reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies have ceased to 
exist over the decades because of Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should 
become a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops 
to an acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's 
competitors is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft 
product lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00017023

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is effectively a monopoly which has engaged in a 
series of anti-competitive practices, often in violation of previous 
court-ordered remediation. Given this history, it is unlikely in the 
extreme that Microsoft will cease this behavior in the face of any 
remediation other than separating the operating system business from 
the rest of the company. I strongly urge the court to do the right 
thing in making this monopoly compliant with US law in the one way 
which can structurally insure compliance-break off the 
operating system.
    Lane Copley
    Contract Technical Writer
    408-369-5249



MTC-00017024

From: Kharabe, Amol (Soliance)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I wanted to add my comment that the Microsoft settlement that is 
being proposed is a *very bad* idea, since it will only succeed in 
*increasing* Microsoft monopoly, not *decreasing* it, as was the 
whole aim of the exercise.
    Thanks.



MTC-00017025

From: Dan Christian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does little to punish Microsoft for its 
wrongdoing.
    Giving Microsoft a government mandated entry into the school 
system is a reward, not a punishment.
    There is no incentive for Microsoft to behave better in the 
future.
    Daniel Christian
    Mountain View, CA



MTC-00017026

From: David Meriwether
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is too weak, and does little to 
restrict Microsoft's leveraging of it's OS monopoly onto other 
markets areas. What is the purpose of the court's review of the 
settlement? What is the purpose of the legal proceedings at this 
point? If it is to ignore the problems leading to the lawsuit and to 
bury the issue while retaining the veneer of having ``solved 
the problem'', perhaps this settlement would come to mind.
    If the purpose of the legal action is to restore some 
possibility of competition in fields threatened by Microsoft's 
domination of the OS market, I would say that this settlement FAILS. 
The settlement, with it's peculiar definition of terms seems quite 
behind the times and focused on the past. The definitions of terms 
such as API, Middleware, and Windows Operating System are twisted 
and narrowed to the point of absurdity. Further, as I understand 
what I have read, the settlement (weak as it is) will be obsolete in 
little more than a year.
    To my understanding, this settlement is so weak and filled with 
omissions and twists that it is irrelevant to the issues it is 
intended to address.
    Please REJECT the settlement. Thank you for any time you spent 
reading this.
    James Meriwether
    500 Bonsall Rd.
    Ridley Park, Pa. 19078



MTC-00017027

From: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Software buyers in countries other than the USA will be driven 
to non-USA products if the USA government is perceived as 
``soft on corporate crime''. This settlement is a bad 
idea.
    Best regards,
    Juan Carlos Castro y Castro
    [email protected]
    Rio de Janeiro-Brazil



MTC-00017028

From: Andrew Hyatt
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This letter is a comment on the Microsoft settlement.
    While the settlement does implement some needed changes, such as 
OEM licencing, the overall settlement is far too weak. This is not 
an opinion I hold on my own; rather, most descriptions of the 
settlement in the press and other places have remarked on how 
lenient it is with Microsoft. A remarkable amount of the settlement 
is open to broad interpretation, and potential loopholes abound. For 
example, with the open-source project Wine ( http://www.winehq.org 
 ) be able to access Windows API? No 
one seems to know for sure. Even without the loopholes, the 
penalties for non-compliance do not seem like penalties at all. 
There are too many ways for Microsoft, with it's excellent legal 
team, to get away with basically whatever it wants. This is 
especially disheartening, since it seems as if Microsoft will soon 
use it's same tried and true tactics to promote it's .NET platform.
    With Microsoft's repeated and widespread abuse of it's monopoly 
power, drastic remedies are needed. It is not in the interests of 
the public to deal gently with Microsoft. The trial has been long, 
and will be the last chance for a while to change Microsoft's 
anticompetitive business practices.
    This trial is simply too important to let an inferior settlement 
stand.
    I strongly urge the court to reject the settlement.



MTC-00017029

From: Bill Costa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    First off, let me affirm that I am a citizen of the United 
States and wish to exercise my right to comment on the recent 
Microsoft settlement as allowed by the Tunney Act comment process. 
(Please see my signature below for full name, address and contact 
information.)
    I feel it is important that Microsoft be prevented from 
introducing intentional incompatibilities in their software to 
discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems. In 1996 the 
operating system vendor Caldera brought a private antitrust suit 
against Microsoft over this very issue. The judge in this case ruled 
that:
    ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.''
    I have every reason to believe that Microsoft will continue to 
use such tactics if allowed to, but unfortunately the current 
settlement does nothing to prevent this. In fact as an e-mail system 
administrator at the University of New Hampshire, I believe I am 
already beginning to see efforts by Microsoft to make it difficult 
to exchange e-mail messages between non-Microsoft e-mail programs 
and Microsoft's own e-mail clients.
    This is an important issue. Without open publication of the the 
operating system's API and the assurance that Microsoft will not 
introduce such intentional incompatibilities, it will be impossible 
for other companies or open source software developers to create 
software that directly competes against Microsoft's own offerings.
    Because of this I feel a provision to explicitly prohibit 
Microsoft from engaging in such practices is vital in helping to 
stop such predatory actions in the future.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Later....BC

[[Page 26348]]

    William Costa
    33 College Road-CIS
    University of New Hampshire
    Durham, NH 03824-3591 USA
    FAX: +1-603-862-4778
    PHONE: +1-603-862-3056
    No good deed...goes unpunished.



MTC-00017030

From: Chris Meyers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to voice my oppostion to the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft antitrust trial. I think that any settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice should do at least 2 things, 
promote healthy competition in the computer operating system/
software market, and impose reasonable punishments on Microsoft for 
their past abuses of their monopoly status. I do not think that the 
current proposed settlement will do either of these things.
    There are many ways to promote more competition in the os/
software market. I believe that one way is to force Microsoft to 
share their API's with other software companies. If other software 
vendors could have access to the Windows API's it would quickly be 
shown how farcical Microsoft's claims of necessary integration are. 
Users would be able to ``integrate'' any software that 
they wanted into their operating system rather than having it just 
sit on top of Windows.
    Another way to promote more competition is to allow other 
vendors to have their operating systems installed on new pc's along 
with Windows. True choice in the operating system market would allow 
me to buy a computer with Windows, Linux, BSD, or any number of 
other operating systems pre-installed on it.
    However Microsoft's contracts with Original Equipment 
Manufacturing companies prevents anything like this from happening. 
This must be changed to promote competition. As far as Microsoft's 
punishment for abuse of their monopoly, I do not have any real 
answers for that. I do not think that a fine will be enough of a 
deterrent, but I don't that that drastic measures such as the break-
up of the company would be good for either the software industry or 
the world economy. I believe that the 3 person oversight panel is a 
good start as long as they have the authority to act quickly and 
prevent monopoly extending products from being introduced into the 
market. If it cannont act quickly and pre-emptively, then I don't 
think that the panel will be effective at all. I thank you for your 
time and I hope that the current proposed settlement will be 
modified to allow more competition and punish Microsoft in a way 
that fits the crimes the for which the company has been found 
guilty.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Meyers
    Programmer
    Huttleston Data Design
    7941 Tree Lane Suite 200
    Madison WI 53717



MTC-00017031

From: Pat Kelley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to add my voice to those disagreeing with the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case. The settlement does not 
adequately punish Microsoft for the many anti-competetive practices 
that Microsoft has been found guilty of, and, more importantly, does 
not do enough to prevent future violations, which I believe continue 
to this date.
    Thak you for your attention.
    Charles P. Kelley
    Firmware Engineer
    Enrev Power Solutions, Inc.
    680 Engineering Drive, Ste 180
    Norcross, GA 30092



MTC-00017032

From: Orlando Echevarria
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am web developer for the School of Engineering for the 
University of Connecticut. I am e-mailing you in regards to the 
Microsoft Anti-trust trial settlement. As a follower of this case 
since Netscape and Microsoft were adversaries in the browser market, 
I am appalled by the settlement that was reached with the nine 
attorney generals. I am appalled that the interest of the taxpayer 
and consumer was ``waived.'' I am distressed that with the 
settlement, Microsoft is literally unscathed by the 
remedies(settlement). There are three examples that the settlement 
does not go far enough to punish Microsoft for it's illegal 
behaviour.
    The first example is that Microsoft is allowed to continue it's 
anti-competitive behaviour through forcing OEM's to sign contracts 
that forces them to use no other rival browser or software. 
Microsoft claims that they are for consumer choice and freedom, but 
yet they will not allow me to choose what operating system or 
software I choose to run on my PC because they manipulate their 
contracts to fit their(Microsoft) needs and not the consumer. Am I 
hurt by this? The answer is yes because I can not go to a store and 
buy a PC and choose the software I want on it. I am forced to accept 
and buy something that I am not going to use, but yet it is forced 
down my throat.
    The second example are the API's. I believe in the interest of 
fairness, Microsoft should make public ALL API's. They have hidden 
API's that allow them to maintain a leverage over their competitors 
and as a result, leave the competitors out of a loop. I propose that 
Microsoft open the source code to their flagship OS, Windows 98, 
Windows 98 SE, Windows Millenium and Windows NT 4.x series. This 
remedy will fit the crimes that they have committed against the 
consumer and competition.
    My two cents,
    Orlando Echevarria



MTC-00017033

From: Silvanis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, and a large number of my peers, do not believe that the 
proposed settlement will hinder Microsoft's monopolistic practices. 
Since someone else has put it much better, I am linking to Dan 
Kegel's analysis. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Thank you for your time,
    John Markle
    2730 NW Palazza Way
    Hillsboro, OR 97124



MTC-00017034

From: Nick Fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    First let me say that I am a Microsoft Certified Systems 
Engineer (MCSE) and as such work with Microsoft and their products 
every day. I firmly believe that Microsoft will act immorally and in 
their own interest until they are stopped (Much as they have done up 
to this day). At every turn Microsoft work to block independent 
innovation and force the use of their products. I fear for the 
future of the computer industry if they are not stopped and I DO NOT 
believe that the current proposed solution will do anything more 
than slow them down for a few years. I personally think that now 
Microsoft have enforced themselves as a standard, that they should 
be forced to open that standard to other developers and allow 
competition.
    Nick Fisher



MTC-00017035

From: Kevin Theobald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a U.S. professor of Computer Engineering with industry 
experience in software engineering, and I would like to register my 
opposition to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
case. I have examined the proposal, and it fails to address the 
problems of Microsoft's monopoly position in many important ways. 
For instance, the settlement contains prohibitions intended to curb 
some of Microsoft's current anti-competitive practices, but relies 
on definitions that are too restrictive and provide too many 
loopholes. As one with experience in software development, I can see 
many ways to exploit these loopholes in order to circumventing the 
restrictions. For instance, Section III(J) allows Microsoft to keep 
security-related APIs secret. It is easy to see that Microsoft will 
simply declare that every API now includes security features (recent 
Microsoft announcements that they will focus more on security 
suggest they are already planning this). Microsoft has a proven 
track record of creatively exploiting every loophole imaginable. 
Their integration of Internet Explorer into their OS in order to 
bypass the ``Consent Decree'' is one example of how much 
they can be trusted to follow the ``spirit'' of an 
agreement.
    The settlement does not punish past behavior already proven 
illegal in court or

[[Page 26349]]

remedy the effects, but merely restricts Microsoft from continuing 
some of this behavior in the future. This sends the message that 
illegal behavior is tolerated and profitable until eventually 
stopped by a court, and will only encourage further lawbreaking by 
Microsoft and other potential monopolists. Furthermore, the 
enforcement mechanism is also very weak, and relies on a Technical 
Committee which is at best prone to chronic deadlock since Microsoft 
effectively has 50% control. In conclusion, the current proposed 
settlement is worse than no settlement at all. It is only a fig 
leaf, which will present the illusion that it is restoring 
competitiveness to the industry while actually doing very little. 
Microsoft will continue to use its control of the OS to gain control 
of other markets, while claiming that competitors and consumers are 
now duly protected by the law.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Kevin B. Theobald



MTC-00017036

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been an information systems professional for more than a 
decade. In my opinion, the proposed Judgement is not an adequate 
remedy to the issues cited in the findings of the case. It is 
insufficient because: a) it allows Microsoft to charge developers a 
fee for interoperability information and allows Microsoft to set 
limits to its dissemination. This immediately disallows any open-
source development using Microsoft-supplied data, and open source 
``free'' sofware is one of the few possible competititors 
to a monopoly with the power and scope Microsoft wields. b) 
Microsoft is left completely un-hindered in its ability to leverage 
existing market dominance in its pursuit of monopolies in other 
markets using precisely the same business practices cited in the 
finding.
    For these reasons I regard the proposed remedy as inadequate.
    Radford Davis
    Pittsburgh, PA



MTC-00017037

From: David Niehoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement in this case is a very bad 
idea. It shows just how easily America is controlled by big 
corporations. Proposing a much more strict settlement would send a 
message to the corporate community that the people aren't going to 
sit down and let Large Corporations like Microsoft get away with 
infringing on our rights as U.S. Citizens.
    Thank you
    David Niehoff
    Boone, NC



MTC-00017038

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
    Mr. / Ms. Hesse:
    Please accept this letter as a comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, under the Tunney Act. I oppose the current proposed 
settlement, for a number of reasons. One that stands out is the fact 
that the current proposed settlement does not prevent Mcrosoft from 
imposing barriers to entry for operating systems which use or 
replicate Windows API's. I feel that the current proposed settlement 
is inadequate and does not properly address the issues posed in the 
initial finding of fact. Again, this letter is a comment opposing 
the current Microsoft settlement.
    My name is Chris Coslor, and I am a citizen of the United 
States, and a registered voter in Jefferson County, Colorado. My 
address is:
    Chris Coslor
    5421 S. Federal Circle #105
    Littleton, CO 80123
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00017039

From: Brian Knotts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Comments regarding the Revised Proposed Final Judgment
    Althought the Revised Proposed Final Judgment does address some 
of the tactics Microsoft used to illegally maintain and extend its 
monopoly position, I am concerned about this portion:
    Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from 
enforcing any provision of any license with any OEM or any 
intellectual property right that is not inconsistent with this Final 
Judgment.
    While this may seem to be standard disclaimer language, I am 
afraid it will be misused by Microsoft to excuse behavior that they 
will almost certainly engage in, in an attempt to bypass the intent 
of the Judgment. One of the OEM licensing practices Microsoft has 
used to build its operating system monopoly is the prohibition of 
any ``non-Microsoft screens'' between the BIOS screen and 
the launch of the Windows desktop. This prevents hardware 
manufacturers from shipping machines in a ``dual-boot'' 
configuration, which would allow consumers to choose the operating 
system they wish to use when they turn on their computer, because 
the operating system selection screen is a ``non-Microsoft 
screen.''
    With the rapidly increasing size of computer hard disks, and 
availability of non-royalty operating systems such as Linux, 
``dual-boot'' configurations could be very attractive to 
OEMs as a means of offering value-added differentiation from other 
vendors. As the Judgment language stands, I believe that Microsoft 
would still be able to prohibit this practice through its license, 
which would be a disservice to consumers.
    The Judgment should explicitly prohibit Microsoft from doing 
anything to prevent OEMs from shipping ``dual-boot'' 
configurations.
    Brian Knotts
    P.O. Box 37
    Bridal Veil, OR 97010
    [email protected]



MTC-00017040

From: John Tyner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Similar to the settlement against 
AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, 
until its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for 
example, assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). This 
must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is 
lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed.
    The risks of a monopoly are greater than merely the loss of 
competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00017041

From: Jack Ulmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea!!
    J. Ulmer
    OS/2 for 10 years.



MTC-00017042

From: Debian User
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Having read the proposed final judgement for USA versus 
Microsoft, I respectfully submit that the remedies it proposes are 
not sufficient to stop Microsoft's unlawful anti-competetive 
practices. The partial opening of Microsoft's APIs, for example, 
might make it easier for some developers to write some software for 
Windows (which can only serve to increase Microsoft's operating 
system market share), but it includes specific restrictions that 
would make it difficult or impossible for non-commercial and Open 
Source developers to have access to these APIs. Nor does it address 
a core issue: the intentional obscurity of Microsoft's constantly 
changing file formats, which makes it extremely difficult to write 
applications that operate on Microsoft-generated files, such as 
Microsoft Word documents.
    Additionally, the settlement does not address Microsoft's 
illegal contractual tying and bundling of middleware to the 
operating system, even though the Court of Appeals

[[Page 26350]]

specifically rejected Microsoft's petition for a rehearing on this 
issue.
    Indeed, the settlement provides no penalty whatsoever for 
Microsoft's past unlawful behavior.
    During the course of the anti-trust trials, Microsoft, far from 
being repentant, has sought to expand its monopoly positions even 
further with its .NET, Passport, and Windows XP Activation schemes. 
It seems clear that Microsoft considers the Department of Justice 
and the U.S. Government to be paper tigers, and the acceptance of 
this proposed settlement by the Court would only serve to prove that 
to them.
    I strongly urge you to reject the proposed settlement and to 
insist on stronger and more effective remedies.
    Respectfully,
    Jason Grimes
    Software Developer and Systems Administrator
    155 Hood Ave.
    Syracuse, NY 13208
    [email protected]



MTC-00017043

From: Brad Bechtel
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a bad idea. Please don't do it.



MTC-00017045

From: William McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As an independent software developer and long-time personal 
computer enthusiast, I am writing to voice my concerns about the 
Proposed Final Judgement in the case of the United States v. 
Microsoft.
    In particular, I am concerned with Microsoft's practices towards 
end-users such as restrictive licensing agreements (e.g., inability 
to use software on non-MS operating systems), intentional 
incompatibilities with non-Microsoft operating systems (e.g., 
Caldera), and non-backwards-compatible software upgrades. It is 
vital to the existence of a free market that no individual company 
control the marketplace. The law of the United States has determined 
that, by its business practices, Microsoft has established 
monopolistic powers over the personal computer industry.
    This monopoly injures computer users by stiffling innovation and 
competition. Personal computer users are thus left with unreliable, 
insecure software (e.g., Outlook) and operating systems (e.g., 
Windows XP). To make users buy the latest version of their software, 
Microsoft stops releasing updates whether or not the newer software 
is better for the user or not.
    As currently written, the Proposed Final Judgement does not, in 
my professional opinion, redress the problems which have established 
Microsoft's monopoly nor its business practices toward personal 
computer users who suffer the consequences of a monopolistic 
company. I refer you to the letter written by Dan Kegel for a more 
complete review of the problems with the proposed judgement.
    I wish you wisdom in finding a solution that better addresses 
the public interest.
    Respectfully yours,
    William McKee
    Lead Developer
    Knowmad Services
    Charlotte, NC
    cc: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001



MTC-00017046

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Paul Eberle,
    New Prague, MN
    Software Developer
    BlueCross BlueShield of MN



MTC-00017047

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As a professional software engineer, I am writing to provide 
input on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. I believe that 
the settlement as proposed is not in the best interests of the 
American public. I further believe that the settlement would be 
harmful to the American economy, and is completely inadequate given 
the findings of fact in the trial-findings of fact which have 
been upheld by the Court of Appeals.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices run counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the 
public-including the Federal Government itself-to bear 
increased costs, and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future. This was a 
serious problem in the 1995 consent decree, and is even more serious 
of a problem with this settlement.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function. Not only that, 
but the proposed settlement has *no* provision for punitive damages 
against Microsoft for its actions in the past. An illegal monopoly 
should not be allowed to retain its ill-gotten gains while merely 
being warned against such conduct in the future. Due to Microsoft's 
size and large amount of cash reserves, any fine levied against them 
should be in the billions of dollars, else it will merely be 
``shrugged off'' and the message will remain unheard. I 
urge the plaintiffs in this lawsuit to stand fast and not accept 
this settlement, which amounts to a slap on the wrist for Microsoft 
and a kick in the crotch for the American public. Thank you.
    Sincerely yours,
    Eric J. Bowersox, Denver, Colorado
    Technical Director, Electric Minds Community 
    Eric J. Bowersox (Erbo)-
    Electric Minds-virtual community since 1996.  ``The sands of time were eroded by the river 
of constant change...''



MTC-00017048

From: Chris Giancaterino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:38pm
Subject: Micrsoft settlement
    the current `settlment agreement' is a terrible 
idea. Under the Tunney Act, we wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.

The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems

    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.

The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions

    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace 
Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware. The PFJ supposedly applies to 
``Windows'', but it defines that term so narrowly that it 
doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, 
or the X-Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and 
are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible 
middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs to 
demonstrate that their middleware is compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.

[[Page 26351]]

    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently used 
by Microsoft

    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems. 
Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large companies, 
state governments, and universities) charge by the number of 
computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities Historically 
Used by Microsoft

    Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities 
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs

    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software. The PFJ allows Microsoft 
to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like 
sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems.
    This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Regards,
    Chris Giancaterino
    [email protected]



MTC-00017049

From: Matthew Hornyak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement: doesn't go far enough
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    The 1980s were a time of diversity and competition in the 
computer industry. There were many different computer platforms, 
each with its own unique strengths. Innovation was strikingly rapid. 
Sadly, that time has passed because one company dominates the 
industry: Microsoft.
    As a director of technology for a large regional consulting 
firm, I am forced to spend a considerable amount of money on systems 
which barely advance over last year's systems, just to stay 
compatible with my clients. Worse, this money could be used for our 
firm to develop innovative products.
    Today, Microsoft is even getting worse; they are forcing large 
firms to move away from perpetual licensing of their software to 
yearly ``subscription'' licenses. They are doing this 
because people were not upgrading their Microsoft software because 
it was not innovative enough to merit spending the money to do so. 
Hence, Microsoft is now building a system in which they get yearly 
revenue from their customers, even if they do not sufficiently 
improve their products.
    I urge the Department of Justice and the Court of Appeals to 
reconsider the settlement and to strongly consider the revised 
settlement offered by some of the states.
    Only then will the software industry be innovative again.
    Thank you,
    Matthew Hornyak
    CTO, rTheory
    245 Melwood Ave #108
    Pittsburgh, PA 15213



MTC-00017050

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement of the Microsoft case. MS has 
repeatedly abused their monopoly position and great wealth to drive 
competition out of business. In doing so they have expanded their 
monopoly time and again. The proposed settlement is far too mild, 
neither appropriate for the henious crime, nor a sufficient deterent 
to prevent similar actions in the future.
    The monopoly has been abused at the cost of citizens and 
corporations, be they competitors, partners, or customers, on a 
scale beyond compare-in terms of over charging, forced 
migrations, forcing the adoption of less-fit solutions, and products 
that are intentionally faulty. MS is a drag on the entire economy, 
the primary reason that the productivity increases that we all 
expected computers to provide has failed to materialize. 
Specifically, MS'' unfair and illegal destruction of 
competitors is a discouragement to current and future innovators.
    seth lytle
    [email protected]
    46 josephine ave. #2
    somerville ma 02144
    617-666-6330



MTC-00017051

From: Mark Lewis
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Mark Lewis, and I am a software engineer at Business 
Logic, a small software company in Chicago, Illinois.
    I do not believe that the proposed final settlement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust suit is sufficient to stop Microsoft from 
continuing it's monopolistic practices. Specifically, in order to 
re-establish competition in the operating systems market, it is 
necessary to publish and document all API's between an application 
program and the host operating system. Without a requirement that 
ALL such API's be documented and available, no other operating 
systems vendor will be able to provide a third-party implementation 
of these API's, and Microsoft will continue to hold a monopoly in 
the operating systems market much as it does today. The Findings of 
Fact make it clear (paragraph 2) that Microsoft abuses private API's 
in a monopolistic fashion. The definition of APIs used in the 
Findings of Fact is effectively the same as the common definition of 
the term in the software industry, namely, ``. . . The 
interfaces between application programs and the operating 
system.''
    However, the definition of the term ``API'' in the 
proposed final judgement is much more limited. It does not include 
all interfaces between application programs and the host operating 
system, and therefore the provisions for reasonable and non-
discriminatory disclosure of APIs (section III.D) do not 
sufficiently address the issue. Since Microsoft would not be 
obligated to release all API's under the terms of the proposed final 
judgement (speaking of APIs in the sense commonly understood in the 
software industry), it will be able to continue to maintain its 
monopoly by releasing private API's under restrictive licenses to 
only those vendors it chooses.
    -Mark Lewis



MTC-00017052

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the prprosed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00017053

From: Geoffrey Costello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:38pm
Subject: Bad Settlement.
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to you to voice my displeasure over the proposed 
deal with Microsoft. Microsoft is a company that has failed to 
follow the restrictions set upon it by previous judges and is beyond 
any doubt, untrustworthy. Microsoft has continued it's predatory 
tactics and the situation is worsening. With XP Microsoft is seeking 
to shut out competitors from the Desktop arena and to force 
consumers to upgrade to future Microsoft operating systems, even if 
no upgrade is desired by the consumer. If this company receives a 
slap on the hand after their previous behavior-which is 
exactly what the current remedy is-then they will have no 
reason not to engage in the same anti-competitive tactics they've 
used for the last decade. They will then use dominance on the 
Desktop to monopolize the server arena (with .NET).
    Capitalism is a great system, so long as the companies in the 
economy are playing by the rules. Unfortunately, these rules are 
broken by some to the detriment of the vast majority of Americans. 
Phillip Morris, and Enron are extreme cases of bad behavior by US 
corporations. Microsoft is not in the same category as these 
companies, but they have broken the law, they are a monopoly, and 
several of their witnesses (including their founder) have committed 
perjury in attempting to maintain their monopoly. They must be 
punished severely.

[[Page 26352]]

    If this deal goes through, it will significantly lower my 
opinion of, and confidence in the Justice Department as well as 
President Bush's administration.
    Regards,
    Geoffrey Costello



MTC-00017054

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i think the proposed settlement is bad idea



MTC-00017056

From: Anthony Skipper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:39pm
    Subject: Not a complaint about MS. Support for MS.
    Hi,
    I just wanted to write in and voice my support for Microsoft. 
Though they may have played unfair and did some stuff people didn't 
like they did help to unify the industry. To me that is the most 
important thing they could have done. I don't care if something 
costs more or doesn't have as many features. What I care about is 
that I don't have to worry that a web page designed for one browser 
isn't compatiable with another. The best thing that could have 
happened was someone won the war of the browser. Even better is that 
the most technologically sophisticated browser one.
    Anyway, could you please leave Microsoft alone. I'm tired of my 
taxes being spent on this crap. I don't mine monopoly practices when 
the make my life better. (The goverment is also a monopoly and they 
make my left better so I don't complain about the goverment either)
    Thank You,
    Anthony Skipper



MTC-00017057

From: Jeebus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: 
[email protected]@ inetgw,letters@
capitalis...
    DOJ,
    Your fallible and spurious pursuit of Microsoft does my, and 
many others, hearts, wallets, and American way of life a great 
disservice. What you have chosen to do is attack a company for 
perceived improprieties and anti-trust accused-not by 
consumers-but by competitors. Those who could not make a 
product affordable, user-friendly, or customizable enough for the 
market have used you, the DO J, as a device to focus their enmity 
and commercial jealousy. They lost; that is one of the side effects 
of capitalism-simple enough.
    I have used Microsoft products for the past nine years; I am now 
a Microsoft Certified Professional and network securities 
enthusiast. I began my computer life using Tandy and Apple lie 
computers. They loaded their entire software suite from a floppy 
disk; to change a program required the computer to be shut off and 
restarted...each and every time. Microsoft created a full-fledge 
graphical user interface that allowed spreadsheets, documents, 
calculators, and vast panoply of Microsoft and 3rd-party software 
followed. Was Microsoft the first with a GUI? No. Was Microsoft the 
first with spreadsheets, word programs and games? No. What Microsoft 
created-and still creates-was an affordable easy to use 
solution for the mainstream public. Most people could neither afford 
UNIX-based machines nor did they have the inclination to learn to 
use the vastly complex UNIX operating system. Microsoft changed 
that.
    Cheap machinery; cheap, easy to use software; ``double-
click and go'' ease was what Microsoft brought to the 
marketplace. I currently run Windows 2000 Advanced Server at home 
for my Microsoft training and I happen to like it. Click here, click 
there, from time to time a written command at a DOS prompt and 
everything falls in line. Contrast that with my Linux machine and 
that is non-stop reading, non-stop typing, and an intricate and 
sometimes evil, if you will, operating system to troubleshoot. I 
appreciate the ease of use that Microsoft has brought me and 
millions of others.
    In my time as a network administrator, I have seen the ease and 
comfort that Microsoft brings users and administrators alike. After 
watching my boss of many years Novell training struggle and fight 
using Novell 5.0 and then watching the ease with which he took to NT 
server and 2000 server, I cannot make the claim that Microsoft is a 
superior product; what I can do is claim that it is the superior 
product for the end-user experience and configuration. With 
Microsoft, an installed server can be up and running set to use 
DHCP, NAT, routing, print sharing and the like in under two hours. 
With others operating systems (IRIX, LINUX, SCO-UNIX), that could 
take a work day.
    When I spent my money on parts for my computer that would go in 
my home for my personal use and my enjoyment, I did not expect the 
government to sit back and punish a company that made a great 
product and attempt to dictate what goes on my computer. They bundle 
IE...so what? It's free anyway.
    If Netscape were so great, people would download it, uninstall 
IE and use Netscape only. Consumers are driven by excellence and 
ease of use. The Yugo was an easy to use car but it was a horribly 
Spartan and an unreliable machine-compare that to Hyundai, a 
manufacturer of also easy to use machines that happen to be 
reliable. My point is, the consumer will dictate where the market 
will go. If television viewers grow weary of reality TV, the 
executives of the station see that fact in the ratings and simply 
show something else. If a user does not like a web browser, they 
will undoubtedly search for another one until they feel they have 
something that befits them. The arrogance of the DOJ in dictating to 
me what I can use, if I find it excellent or not, is overwhelmingly 
anti-capitalist. I make the decision of what I want to buy; I make 
the decision as to what I want to use, not the DOJ. If I find it 
lacking, then that company has simply lost another customer. If 
enough share my opinion, the company will cease that product or die 
a free-market death as they should.
    One overwhelming flaw in the DOJ's case is that the charges 
against Microsoft were not brought by the consumer, but by 
Microsoft's business rivals. SUN, unarguably, makes fantastic 
servers and mesmerizing stable operating systems. What they do not 
do, however, is bring a product to the mainstream consumer level. If 
they really cared about competing they would make an x86-compatible 
operating system. They recently decided to scrap that notion. I 
severely want to learn to use the SUN OS for my future computer work 
but why would I buy a $4,000 entry-level workstation to play with 
when I could enjoy the fruits of an OS for free or some trivial 
price? There is simply no incentive as an end-user to spend so much 
money on the hopes of having a satisfying experience with a 
computer.
    Netscape is a company with numerous product failures and 
encryption flaws. There software is bloated, unresponsive, and prone 
to crash. They force users to register an email address and user 
name to use their latest software. They thusly inundate one with 
email and sell user names and email addresses to their advertisers. 
Microsoft does none of these things. To use IE you choose 
`No'' to set up an internet account and you are done.
    This next point may seem trivial but after watching end-users 
for three years on this issue, I have a good idea of what I am 
writing: people hate Netscape. When they click on the Netscape icon, 
9 times out of 10 it will load successfully (and this is on the 
latest and best from Dell); when Netscape cannot load a page 
properly, it hangs and does not allow the user to press 
`stop'' or `reload'; it simply holds them in 
suspense while IE allows you to press `stop'' and go on 
to another page.
    Netscape, upon loading, takes a good six seconds on even the 
fastest machines. IE opens before you realize the mouse button after 
clicking its icon. Users make note of these things. I watched an 
entire department bemoan and spew forth mountains of rancor against 
Netscape because they were forced to use it for its email 
incorporation. Only for email would they use this product and at 
every turn they would complain to me about it. Just because a 
product has a huge market share does not mean the product was put 
their through illegal avenues. SUN dominates certain sectors of the 
server market because they make fantastic systems; why not haul them 
in for anti-trust charges of dominating the market?
    A much more important issue evidenced by the DOJ's action 
against Microsoft is the perception amongst the public that the DOJ 
is attacking excellence and ingenuity. I'll try not to belabor the 
point but it is quite evident to anyone who can read or think that 
this type of action leads to socialist and communist states. If you 
attack and besmirch those who excel in the name of those who fail, 
then you punish achievement and laud failure. What example does this 
set for a capitalist society? The reason for America's success (as 
opposed to others failures) is its free and open market. With 
millions of points of ingenuity and creativity, we have secured 
ourselves in a system that, should one point fail, others will step 
in and take its place-with the government, there is one, 
inculpable point of failure and no good can come of that. What the 
DOJ is doing is saying that no point can ever go out, no flame ever 
extinguished.

[[Page 26353]]

    I do not know if this is the product of bleeding-heart 
liberalism or people who do not even understand their own economy. 
Take, for example, SGI. SGI used to have a monopoly on high-end 
graphics for movie special effects. With Moore's Law and the 
decreasing price of computer hardware (coupled with the increase in 
graphical power), SGI is a dinosaur. The SGI seems to only exist for 
massive render farms (e.g., Los Alamos nuclear research) and FAA 
virtual airports. HP's line of PA-RISC and fx chips; Intel and AMD 
getting strong floating-point performance; nVidia and 3D Labs with 
affordable and extremely powerful hardware; and Microsoft and Linux 
clustering ability have made SGI a thing of the past for most 
corporations and movie studios. Why spend $30k for one machine when 
you could buy four machines, one with graphics card and three to 
support rendering, that would be geometrically faster than the SGI 
for a fraction of the price? It's called innovation. SGI failed to 
adjust for the low-end market and they have rightly suffered. Should 
you punish the collective of HP, Intel, AMD, nVi dia, 3D Labs, 
Microsoft and Linux, for excelling where SGI fails? I think not. It 
would be foolish and an instantaneous blockade to our free market. 
Why then, do you attack Microsoft for excelling where Netscape and 
other competitors fail? You really believe that bundling software is 
some brazen act of anti-trust? That would be laughable were it not 
so arrogant. Realplayer bundles a host of, to me, chintzy and 
useless software. What do I do with them if happen to need the basic 
Realplayer? I uninstall them.
    While you might make not that IE cannot completely be 
uninstalled because the registry of Windows is closely coupled with 
the IE kernel, deleting the icons to IE is, to most people, the same 
as uninstalling it.
    Don't like it, don't Use it. I have some forks and spoons that I 
don't like; I do not sue them for being in the drawer, I just ignore 
them.
    I used to remember a time when I and others were encouraged to 
excel. Seems times have changed. In America, with the 
`progressive'' and politically correct movement, there 
are no definitive wrongs or absolutes-except that the 
unapologetically wealthy and anything remotely Western civilization 
are bad. If I were poor, I would be embraced. If I wrote a book or 
invented something and became wealthy, ! would be repugned and hated 
by the very people who used to love me because they considered me to 
be oppressed by America. The DOJ is taking this same stance. By 
attacking Microsoft for its excellence, you embrace losers, yes 
``losers'', and say to them that you'll take care of 
them because failure is alright and nothing to ashamed 
about-and two plus two equals five.
    The federal government, other than national defense, does 
nothing as well or efficiently as the private sector. It is proven 
over decades and decades of empirical evidence-look at public 
schools; mountains of failure and no one to hold responsible. Why 
now then, does the DOJ believe it can put the hand of the government 
in the private sector and make things better? The government will 
only destroy our economy. The private sector is the economy. The 
government is a tool of the people, to serve our needs, not to 
mollycoddle and pander to the losers of our free market. There is 
nothing quite as bad as an untouchable, inculpable government 
overseer asserting power where it has proven, time and again, its 
incompetence. When the government fails, there is no one to hold 
responsible. The knowledge of such has proven to be quite the 
intoxicant for the DOJ.
    Please cease this case against Microsoft. You only do American 
citizens and the economy harm.



MTC-00017058

From: guinevere liberty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, as a concerned citizen, must express my concerns regarding 
the proposed Microsoft Settlement or Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ).
    The idea of punishing a monopoly by requiring them to extend 
their monopoly into the US educational system is incomprehensible 
and distressing.
    Furthermore, I do not support the proposed settlement because I 
do not think it provides sufficient punishment to balance 
Microsoft's offenses, nor sufficient incentive to prevent them from 
doing the same in the future.
    Also, some of the definitions are too narrow to fulfill their 
purpose or do not cover all areas in question. For example:
    Definition A: ``API''
    The Findings of Fact ( 2) define ``API'' to mean the 
interfaces between application programs and the operating system. 
However, the PFJ's Definition A defines it to mean only the 
interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows, 
excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs. For 
instance, the PFJ's definition of API might omit important APIs such 
as the Microsoft Installer APIs which are used by installer programs 
to install software on Windows.
    another example:
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft :
    1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source 
applications
    The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA states ... you 
shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in conjunction 
with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly Available 
Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, or is 
derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that 
is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) 
or similar licensing or distribution models ... Publicly Available 
Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or 
distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); ... Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, are 
shipped by Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated redistributable 
components. Applications that wish to use them must include the add-
ons, even though they might later become a standard part of Windows. 
Microsoft often provides those SDKs under End User License 
Agreements (EULAs) prohibiting their use with Open Source 
applications. This harms ISVs who choose to distribute their 
applications under Open Source licenses; they must hope that the 
enduser has a sufficiently up-to-date version of the addon API 
installed, which is often not the case.
    Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include the 
competing middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office 
suite StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, 
and discourage the use of, competing middleware and office suites.
    Additionally, since Open Source applications tend to also run on 
non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting loss of market share 
by Open Source applications indirectly harms competing operating 
systems. Additionally, there are sections of the PFJ that 
effectively encourage, rather than dismay, the monopolistic 
practices in question:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas. Please give serious consideration to 
these and similar problems with the current version of the Poposed 
Final Judgement or Settlement.
    Thank you very much,
    guinevere liberty nell



MTC-00017059

From: Francois Bradet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo.

[[Page 26354]]

Of the remaining provisions, none will effectively prohibit 
Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly position in the 
operating system market. This is especially important in view of the 
seriousness of Microsoft's past transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Francois Bradet



MTC-00017060

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement through it's narrow definitions 
and its inability to quickly act allows Microsoft to simply side-
step the injunctions against it and, by changing very little and 
relabeling its practices, allows Microsoft to continue anti-
competitive practices as well as punish consumers and further 
business developments in increased costs and tighter licensing 
requirements.
    Please ammend the settlement to truly open the standards so that 
America can truly benefit from fair competition and fair business 
practices.
    Thank You.
    HAP Proctor



MTC-00017061

From: Stephen Reppucci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to voice my opposition regarding the proposed 
settlement of the US Department of Justice's antitrust case against 
Microsoft. As a professional software developer, with over 20 years 
of experience in this field, I have watched Microsoft grow from a 
company which made marginally useful software into a colossus which 
uses its considerable weight to bully the software industry into 
making its products the only choice that a non-expert can turn to.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to punish Microsoft for its 
past sins. From my understanding of the settlement, the most serious 
consequence for Microsoft in this settlement is that they are being 
asked to promise that they won't act in a non-competitive manner 
again. As history shows from past agreements from Microsoft, they 
have no fear of breaking promises such as this one as soon as the 
media focus shifts elsewhere and they feel they can again get away 
with their heavy-handed tactics.
    Microsoft has an undeniable monopoly on the operating system 
market for Intel based PCs, a fact that has been determined by the 
courts, and one that's painfully obvious to me.
    For further proof of this monopoly, I've personally had to pay 
for copies of Microsoft OSes four times in my life, even though I 
never use their operating systems. If one were to call Dell, 
Gateway, Compaq, or any of the other major PC vendors, and ask to 
buy a computer system without paying for a Microsoft operating 
system, they'd find that it's impossible to do. That is proof enough 
of a monopoly in my eyes.
    Microsoft uses this operating system monopoly to advance the 
market share of other software applications it produces. The 
dominance of MS Office, Internet Explorer, Excel, and other 
applications, even in the presence of other applications that are at 
least as good, if not better than the MS products is further proof 
that Microsoft continues to use its monopoly.
    The only reasonable settlement that I can envision breaking this 
cycle is to force Microsoft to split into two companies, one 
producing operating systems, and a separate one producing 
applications.
    In addition, I'm in favor of seeing a settlement that punishes 
Microsoft for its past sins. Allowing them to keep the money they 
made while behaving in an illegal manner is not a fair settlement to 
me.
    Thank you for considering my opinion on this matter. -
    Steve Reppucci
    [email protected]
    Logical Choice Software
    http://logsoft.com/
    My God! What have I done?



MTC-00017062

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    About four years ago my wife and I bought an Aptiva PC. We 
bought it because of the IBM name. It came with the Windows 95 
operating system. We had a coupon to upgrade to Win 98 but many 
articles and talk show interviews said that there were many bugs in 
the system so we opted out. Later, we bought a scanner. It is a 
UMax. The software that came with the unit defaults to Microsoft IE 
when attempting to attach a document to an email. We are using 
Netscape as a browser and had to get technical support and a couple 
of books to learn how to attach a document to an email. If we were 
using IE it required dragging the wanted document to an icon and zip 
it was done. We replied to an offer by AT&T to subscribe to 
their Worldnet. It came with Microsoft IE5.5. We refused it. In all 
of these examples it would be so easy for my wife and I to just 
accept IE and MSN and all of the Microsoft stuff but then it would 
eliminate our opportunity to get what we wanted.
    Our thoughts are that if Bill Gates made lug nuts we would all 
be driving a Gatesmobile. The customer should have the opportunity 
to select the software that they desire and not be manipulated by 
technical strategies that are designed to make people conform to one 
product.
    Thank you. Richard & Maya Caudill, 839 Loyalton Dr., 
Campbell, CA 95008



MTC-00017063

From: Gita Sukthankar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Divsion
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I believe that the proposed settlement in the U.S. vs. Microsoft 
anti-trust case is woefully inadequate and will not achieve the 
desired effect of curbing Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    Certain terms are defined too narrowsly in the settlement; 
unless these definitions are amended to include future products 
Microsoft will be able to skirt around the spirit of the settlement 
and continue with its monopolistic and predatory behavior.
    Definition K: ``Microsoft Middleware Product''
    This definition should be amended to include .NET, given that 
Microsoft is touting C# and .NET as the middleware of the 
future. Open source implementations of .NET standards have to be 
able to compete effectively with Microsoft. Definition U: 
``Windows Operating System Product'' This definition 
should also include Intel-compatible operating systems Windows XP 
Table PC edition and Windows CE. Given that Microsoft is focusing on 
the Tablet PC as the future business platform of choice, omitting 
these operating systems will mean that future court cases about 
handheld OSs are inevitable.
    Gita Sukthankar
    Gita Sukthankar
    [email protected]
    Compaq Computer Corporation
    617-551-7651
    Cambridge Research Laboratory
    One Cambridge Center
    Cambridge, MA 02142



MTC-00017064

From: Ron Ralston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am strongly opposed to the settlement proposed in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial.
    What is contained in that proposal provides neither adequate 
oversight and review to prevent recurrences of such actions in the 
future nor adequate penalties for those of the past.
    Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly and to have used that 
position to illegally increase their fortunes at the expense of 
competitors, their own OEM customers, and the American public.
    The proposed settlement seemingly accepts that Microsoft has 
behaved illegally, requires no meaningful compensation for their

[[Page 26355]]

victims, and requires that they behave very slightly differently in 
the future-and then only on specific and enumerated products. 
This sort of settlement will do little to discourage Microsoft from 
similar activities in the future and will do nothing to keep them 
from using their vast financial resources to circumvent it.
    The proposed settlement does not apply to any and all products, 
of any sort whatsoever, designed, manufactured, or marketed by any 
company either partially or wholly owned by Microsoft, its heirs, 
successors, or assignees, past, present, and future-it should. 
It does not require full and open disclosure of all APIs and file 
formats to developers of products which might compete with Microsoft 
products-it should. It does not prohibit the predatory 
practice of releasing Microsoft products which ``cripple'' 
competing products-it should. It does not prohibit software 
licenses which prohibit (or seriously restrict) packaging of non-
Microsoft products by OEMs-it should. It does not prevent them 
from using their nearly absolute control of the end-user computer 
interface to sell other Microsoft products and services-it 
should.
    Finally, the proposed settlement seems to allow Microsoft to 
provide second-hand computers to under-financed school systems and 
supply them with Microsoft software. This is amazingly inadequate 
for several reasons:
    First, there is absolutely no shortage of used computers in this 
country. I've worked for computer manufacturers and I can assure you 
that used computers are next to impossible to give away to school 
districts-they want want current models.
    Private individuals, corporations, and government agencies scrap 
thousands of functional two or three year old computers daily and 
many of them end up in landfills because no home can be found for 
them.
    Second, although the development cost of software is high, the 
manufacturing cost of the distribution media is negligible.
    The out-of-pocket cost to Microsoft for operating system and 
application software CDs is only a few cents each.
    Lastly, the concept of a settlement which requires that 
Microsoft's punishment for monopolistic acts be to actually extend 
the monopoly to include new victims who have escaped it in the past 
because of lack of funds verges on the surreal.
    Find a settlement which protects us from Microsoft and is so 
painful to them that they never think of acting illegally again.
    Ron Ralston
    23704 El Toro Rd. #5-285
    Lake Forest, CA 92630



MTC-00017065

From: Josh Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it concerns:
    I dislike the proposed settlement with Microsoft. Specifically, 
I dislike that, rather than punishment for things already done, the 
settlement mainly focuses on future ``restrictions''. I 
put that word in quotes because Microsoft will still be able to 
carry on many of their practices against the ``small guy'' 
because these people will not be able to bring a lawsuit against the 
monolith of Microsoft-they are simply to big and have too much 
power. I would like to see something that would actually prevent 
this kind of bully like behavior rather that just restrict it.
    Sincerely,
    Josh Thompson
    Raleigh, NC



MTC-00017066

From: Jon McClintock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:41pm
Subject: The proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft, Inc.
    Hello,
    I'm am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed DOJ 
settlement with Microsoft Corporation is a bad idea. I do not 
believe that it is nearly sufficient to ensure equitable behavior on 
the part of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jon McClintock
    El Cerrito, CA



MTC-00017067

From: Mike Van Wyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors and the public. The settlement does not do enough to 
curtail Microsoft from abusing it's monopoly power in the future nor 
does it address many of their past abuses.
    Fair competition in software development benefits us all.
    Thank you,
    Mike Van Wyk
    242 14th St SE
    Auburn, WA 98002



MTC-00017068

From: Christopher Flynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally feel that microsoft should be forced to open up 
it's code so that developers can write emulators and libraries to 
bring microsoft code to other platforms such as mac and UNIX instead 
of having to create slow emulators that don't emulate things 100%, 
thus restricting the operating system to a user depending on the 
programs they want to run.
    -Christopher Flynn



MTC-00017069

From: Tim Butterfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wanted to add my voice to those who disagree with the proposed 
judgment against Microsoft. I agree with Dan Kegel's comments on 
many points, though I will address just a few of these here. As a 
software developer working on Windows, Solaris and Linux, the 
proposed definitions of API, Middleware, Middleware Product, Windows 
OS and the non-disclosure of proprietary file formats are 
troublesome. I define API as an application programming interface. 
This is not limited to only operating system interfaces. For 
example, applications, libraries, other development tools and even 
web services like Passport have interfaces which can be programmed 
to. These are all APIs, which appear to be excluded under the 
proposed definition. Middleware should not be defined or limited by 
a version number, but by how the software is architected. Many web 
enabled applications I have worked on have a middleware component as 
do many desktop applications. With development using the new .NET 
architecture, these portions of the applications will still be 
considered middleware. As that middleware may use .NET, .NET must 
therefore be either middleware itself or part of the underlying ! 
operating system. However, .NET does not appear to be classified 
this way in the proposal. As for the file formats, they should be 
open and documented sufficiently to allow the use of those file 
formats on other operating systems and by other applications. The 
current proposal is lacking in this requirement.
    One other area that I find particularly heinous is the practice 
of prohibiting the sale of computers without a Microsoft operating 
system installed. It is impossible or nearly impossible to buy a 
computer, especially a laptop computer, without it having some 
variety of Microsoft operating system installed. I would like that 
option to be available in the marketplace and the current practices 
make it prohibitive for manufactures to do this.
    I hope that a more amenable solution can be arrived at.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Butterfield



MTC-00017070

From: Stephen Moehle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement. I believe 
that it does not do enough to penalize Microsoft for past 
anticompetitive behavior, nor does it do enough to prevent Microsoft 
from engaging in such behavior in the future.
    In particular the definitions of the terms ``API'' and 
``middleware'' are much too narrowly defined and would 
allow Microsoft to withhold a great deal of information necessary 
for a competitor to fully use the APIs and integrate with Windows.
    Further, many Microsoft APIs may be covered by software patents. 
All APIs must be licensed free of charge to all developers but in 
particular to open-source developers, and any relevant patents must 
be licensed royalty-free.
    Also, the proposed settlement does nothing to prevent Microsoft 
from retaliating against OEMs that sell computers with non-Microsoft 
OSes installed, most notably Linux. OEMs must be free to sell 
computers with any

[[Page 26356]]

operating system they wish and still be able to purchase the 
Microsoft OSes at the same prices as any other OEM.
    Stephen Moehle
    Berkeley, CA
    Software Engineer



MTC-00017071

From: cary roys
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad 
idea, and contrary to what you may think, will actually worsen 
Microsoft's stranglehold upon the computing industry.
    -Cary Roys



MTC-00017072

From: Danny Calegari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer of computer software, and a person who uses 
computers and computational tools in essential ways in my work (I am 
a professor of mathematics at Harvard), I would like to strongly 
suggest that the proposed Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. My 
specific objections are numerous, but I will restrict myself to just 
one: the PFJ does *not* go far enough in prohibiting exclusionary 
licensing practices by Microsoft towards ISV's. For example, 
programs developed with Microsoft Visual C++ may not be distributed 
with windows-compatible operating systems; in particular, the 
Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: ``Distribution Terms. You may 
reproduce and distribute ... the Redistributable Components... 
provided that (a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only 
in conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product...'' This is only one 
of many examples; in order for the PFJ to have substance to it, it 
must comprehensively uphold the abilities of consumers to pick and 
choose combinations of free, open-source, and proprietary software 
to use with each other in whatever manner they see fit.
    I hope you find this opinion useful.
    Yours sincerely,
    Danny Calegari PhD



MTC-00017073

From: Ed Silva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case is 
simply unacceptable. It would reward them, not punish them, and 
allow them to further expand their monopoly to a market which is not 
completely controlled by them. How can expanding their monopoly be 
punishment?
    Please, go back to the drawing board on this one. The future of 
the computing world is at stake here, and there are many who dread 
the thought that Microsoft will have a strangle hold on it.
    Yours,
    Ed Silva



MTC-00017074

From: Waterman, Bryan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am completely opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed 
settlement does not come even close to redressing the actions 
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their ability to 
commit similar actions in the future.
    Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations. The 
proposed settlement provides no punishment that will convice 
Microsoft to change their corporate behavior, or does it provide 
adequate releif for the injured party: namely myself and millions of 
other computer users that are litterally forced to use Microsoft 
products.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded. This 
fact must be evident, given the huge public outcry against the 
proposed settlement, as well as the fact that many of the States 
Attorneys General have publically said that the proposed settlement 
does not provide any measure of justice. The follow is a list of 
minimum remedies that court should consider. Remember, Microsoft is 
guilty, do not let them buy their way out.
    Proposed remedies $4 billion in fines, payable to the US 
government
    Microsoft Windows, 2000, XP source code must become government 
property.
    Rights to lisence this code will be auctioned off just as the 
FCC auctions off spectrum rights. Microsoft will be allowed to keep 
the applications as copyrighted works, with the copy-right 
experation date to be 2006.
    All EULA agreements with Microsoft are declared void.
    All licensing contracts with Microsoft are to be voided, and new 
contracts must be made publicly availible. No more secret discounts.
    Any prohibition against ``dual boot'' computers must 
be declared void and immediately removed from any contracts with 
Microsoft. This provision should be implemented immediately, 
irrespective of the time line of other penalties.
    If Microsoft violates the terms of the above remedies, they are 
to be broken up as a company
    Sincerely,
    Bryan Waterman
    Using Microsoft products is like dealing with a cross between 
Marvin the Paranoid Android, HAL, and a VCR that always blinks 
12:00.



MTC-00017075

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Speaking for myself and NOT my employer: As a computer scientist 
with more than 20 years of experience I am astounded at the 
MS-DOJ settlement proposal. Aside from the money spent to hold 
the trial and the subsequent negotiations essentially nothing has or 
will change and MS will suffer no pain or penalty for their 
monopolistic manipulation of the software industry.
    My suggested course of action is to retry the case and this time 
allow some of us who understand just what MS is doing wrong to 
participate in the trial.
    Joseph M. Cassano



MTC-00017076

From: Shawn Grant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is 
insufficient. Microsoft has been found guilty yet it does not seem 
as though they are going to be punished at all. The settlement only 
attempts to force Microsoft to act a fair manner without punishment 
for its transgressions, and still fails to do that. I feel one of 
the main problems with the settlement is the lack of protection 
afforded to the Open Source community. At this point, Linux and 
other Open Source projects appear to be the only viable competition 
to Microsoft, yet the settlement allows Microsoft to decide on their 
viability as a business and withhold access to Microsoft APIs, 
documentation, and communications protocols.
    I call for further restrictions and punishment in the settlement 
with Microsoft. Thank you for your consideration.
    Shawn Grant
    Software Engineer
    Ventura, California



MTC-00017077

From: Wilson, Harry
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: No
    After careful analysis. I ask that you not approve the Microsoft 
Settlement.
    Harry H. Wilson
    Director of Information Services
    Standard & Poor's Financial Communications
    711 Atlantic Avenue
    Boston, MA 02111
    (617)357-6235
    http://fc.standardandpoors.com

[[Page 26357]]



MTC-00017078

From: Deven Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the settlement proposal in the case of US Department Of 
Justice v. Microsoft Corp. there are many weaknesses. Below is a 
list of some of the more glaring misgivings I have concerning the 
case:
    I. How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware, 
and ``Windows OS'' be defined?
    The Findings of Fact (? 2) define ``API'' to mean the 
interfaces between application programs and the operating system. 
However, the PFJ's Definition A defines it to mean only the 
interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows, 
excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs. For 
instance, the PFJ's definition of API might omit important APIs such 
as the Microsoft Installer APIs which are used by installer programs 
to install software on Windows.
    The Findings of Fact (? 28) define ``middleware'' to 
mean application software that itself presents a set of APIs which 
allow users to write new applications without reference to the 
underlying operating system. Definition J defines it in a much more 
restrictive way, and allows Microsoft to exclude any software from 
being covered by the definition in two ways:
    1. By changing product version numbers. For example, if the next 
version of Internet Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead 
of ``7'' or ``7.0'', it would not be deemed 
Microsoft Middleware by the PFJ.
    2. By changing how Microsoft distributes Windows or its 
middleware. For example, if Microsoft introduced a version of 
Windows which was only available via the Windows Update service, 
then nothing in that version of Windows would be considered 
Microsoft Middleware, regardless of whether Microsoft added it 
initially or in a later update. This is analogous to the loophole in 
the 1995 consent decree that allowed Microsoft to bundle its browser 
by integrating it into the operating system.
    Definition K defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
to mean essentially Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), 
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook 
Express (OE).
    The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET is 
questionable; Microsoft has essentially designated Microsoft.NET and 
C# as the successors to Java, so on that basis one would expect 
Microsoft.NET to be included in the definition.
    The inclusion of Outlook Express and not Outlook is 
questionable, as Outlook (different and more powerful than Outlook 
Express) is a more important product in business, and fits the 
definition of middleware better than Outlook Express.
    The exclusion of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many 
components of Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition 
of middleware. For instance, there is an active market in software 
written to run on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and 
many applications are developed for Microsoft Access by people who 
have no knowledge of Windows APIs.
    Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating systems. 
Yet the PFJ in definition U defines a ``Windows Operating 
System Product'' to mean only Windows 2000 Professional, 
Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and their successors. This 
purposely excludes the Intel-compatible operating systems Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition and Windows CE; many applications written to the 
Win32 APIs can run unchanged on Windows 2000, Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition, and Windows CE, and with minor recompilation, can also be 
run on Pocket PC. Microsoft even proclaims at www.microsoft.com/
windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp: ``The Tablet PC is the 
next-generation mobile business PC, and it will be available from 
leading computer makers in the second half of 2002. The Tablet PC 
runs the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and features the 
capabilities of current business laptops, including attached or 
detachable keyboards and the ability to run Windows-based 
applications.'' and Pocket PC: Powered by Windows Microsoft is 
clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and Pocket PC in places 
(e.g. portable computers used by businessmen) currently served by 
Windows XP Home Edition, and thus appears to be trying to evade the 
Final Judgment's provisions. This is but one example of how 
Microsoft can evade the provisions of the Final Judgment by shifting 
its efforts away from the Operating Systems listed in Definition U 
and towards Windows XP Tablet Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, X-Box, 
or some other Microsoft Operating System that can run Windows 
applications.
    II. How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier 
to Entry?
    The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in two 
ways:
    1. By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
    2. By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the 
use of non-Microsoft middleware. A third option not provided by the 
PFJ would be to make sure that Microsoft raises no artificial 
barriers against non-Microsoft operating systems which implement the 
APIs needed to run application programs written for Windows. The 
Findings of Fact (?52) considered the possibility that competing 
operating systems could implement the Windows APIs and thereby 
directly run software written for Windows as a way of circumventing 
the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is in fact the route being 
taken by the Linux operating system, which includes middleware 
(named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity 
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the 
information for the purpose of writing operating systems that 
interoperate with Windows programs.
    III. How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a 
Technical Committee with investigative powers, but appears to leave 
all actual enforcement to the legal system.
    IV. What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage 
competition, and under what terms?
    The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical 
information to ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several 
ways:
    1. Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of competing 
middleware to meet ``reasonable technical requirements'' 
seven months before new releases of Windows, yet it does not require 
Microsoft to disclose those requirements in advance. This allows 
Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by changing the 
requirements shortly before the deadline, and not informing ISVs.
    2. Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via 
MSDN or similar means the documentation for the APIs used by 
Microsoft Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release 
would be required at the time of the final beta test of the covered 
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be 
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their 
products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which states 
that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet 
unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final 
beta test of a new version of Windows.
    3. The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' and ``API'' means that Section 
III.D.'s requirement to release information about Windows interfaces 
would not cover many important interfaces.
    4. ISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in 
Findings of Fact (?52) sometimes have difficulty understanding 
various undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under 
section III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs-except that the 
PFJ disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid 
running afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their 
engineers into two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on 
Windows-only applications; and those who cannot refer to MSDN 
because they work on applications which also run on non-Microsoft 
operating systems. This would constitute retaliation against ISVs 
who support competing operating systems.
    5. No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see 
``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39).
    6. Section III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to 
license certain intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to 
require Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software 
patents protect the Windows APIs (perhaps in the style proposed by 
the W3C; see http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-

[[Page 26358]]

patent-policy-20010816/#sec-disclosure). This leaves Windows-
compatible operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are 
they not infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare 
away potential users, as illustrated by this report from 
Codeweavers, Inc.:
    When selecting a method of porting a major application to Linux, 
one prospect of mine was comparing Wine [a competing implementation 
of some of the Windows APIs] and a toolkit called 
`MainWin'. MainWin is made by Mainsoft, and Mainsoft 
licenses its software from Microsoft. However, this customer elected 
to go with the Mainsoft option instead. I was told that one of the 
key decision making factors was that Mainsoft representatives had 
stated that Microsoft had certain critical patents that Wine was 
violating. My customer could not risk crossing Microsoft, and 
declined to use Wine. I didn't even have a chance to determine which 
patents were supposedly violated; nor to disprove the validity of 
this claim.
    The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal situation to continue, 
is inhibiting the market acceptance of competing operating systems.
    V. Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
    The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, 
but curiously allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional `white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas.
    VI. Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
    Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain 
exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs.
    However, Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, 
none of which are mentioned in the PFJ. Several of Microsoft's 
products'' licenses prohibit the products'' use with 
popular non-Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples 
are given below.
    1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source 
applications
    The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT 
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT states: ... you shall not distribute the 
REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in conjunction with any Publicly Available 
Software. ``Publicly Available Software'' means each of 
(i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in 
whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free 
software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or 
distribution models ... Publicly Available Software includes, 
without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of 
the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or 
distribution models similar to any of the following: GNU's General 
Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic 
License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public License; the Netscape 
Public License; the Sun Community Source License (SCSL); ...
    Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, are shipped by 
Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated redistributable components. 
Applications that wish to use them must include the add-ons, even 
though they might later become a standard part of Windows. Microsoft 
often provides those SDKs under End User License Agreements (EULAs) 
prohibiting their use with Open Source applications. This harms ISVs 
who choose to distribute their applications under Open Source 
licenses; they must hope that the enduser has a sufficiently up-to-
date version of the addon API installed, which is often not the 
case.
    Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include the 
competing middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office 
suite StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, 
and discourage the use of, competing middleware and office suites. 
Additionally, since Open Source applications tend to also run on 
non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting loss of market share 
by Open Source applications indirectly harms competing operating 
systems.
    2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who target Windows-
compatible competing Operating Systems
    The Microsoft Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++, 
is the primary toolkit used by ISVs to create Windows-compatible 
applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: 
``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute ... the 
Redistributable Components... provided that (a) you distribute the 
Redistributable Components only in conjunction with and as a part of 
your Application solely for use with a Microsoft Operating System 
Product...'' This makes it illegal to run many programs built 
with Visual C++ on Windows-compatible competing operating 
systems.''
    By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is 
contributing to the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing 
operating systems.
    The Preceding examples are only but a few of the potential loop-
holes in the Proposed settlement. For a more complete listing, 
please refer to : http://crossover.codeweavers.com/mirror/
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Mr. Dan Kegel has performed a great deal of research and speaks 
for a large number of software developers, systems engineers, and 
various other information technology professionals with his 
misgivings. Al
    so, more information can be found at:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/O1/16/competition/index.html
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/O15/business/
Microsoft_case_key_to_tech_s_future+.sh
tml
http://computeruser.com/articles/2101,3,1,1,0101,02.html
http://linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20
-OP-MS
    Please take these items under consideration prior to approving 
the proposed settlement, as the PFJ as it stands will not only fail 
to acheive the goal set forth by the findings in the case; but it 
may in fact drive Microsoft's anti-competitive practices to an all 
time high.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph B. Phillips, CISSP
    Senior Information Security Analyst
    Computer Sciences Corporation
    RITSC Hawaii Information Assurance
    350 Ward Ave. #106-193
    Honolulu, HI 96814
    PH: (808) 348-0885
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00017079

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. Microsoft is a 
BAD IDEA. This judgment allows many exclusionary practices to 
continue, and does not take any direct measures to reduce the 
Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to the market.
    John C. Burkhard
    John C. Burkhard
    ICF Consulting, Inc.
    9300 Lee Highway
    Fairfax, VA 22031



MTC-00017080

From: Nic Simonds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past,

[[Page 26359]]

but which also prevent them from engaging in other monopolistic 
practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Nicolas Simonds
    763.551.6517
    [email protected]
    Computer Science-n.-A study akin to numerology and 
astrology, but lacking the precision of the former and the success 
of the latter.
    -Stan Kelly-Bootle, The Computer Contradictionary



MTC-00017081

From: Spencer Roedder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to put on record my opposition to the Proposed 
Final Judgment in the Microsoft anti-trust case as inadequately 
restrictive of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
    As just two examples:
    1. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release internal API 
specifications to Independent Software Vendors only at the time the 
software goes into beta release. This gives inadequate time for ISVs 
to make their software compatible (or competitive). Further, 
Microsoft can easily manipulate the schedule or labeling of pre-
releases (e.g., ``alpha'' releases) to circumvent this 
requirement even further.
    2. Nowhere does the PFJ require Microsoft to release 
undocumented file formats, even though it was established in the 
Findings of Fact that these undocumented formats form part of the 
barrier to entry for ISVs. Thank you for your attention.



MTC-00017082

From: Reid Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/23 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a horrible idea. I'm adding my voice against 
it.
    -Reid Young
    Student @ Purdue University



MTC-00017083

From: Robert Feldbauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe definition U. should be ammended as follows: 
``Windows Operating System Product'' means any software or 
firmware code distributed commercially by Microsoft that is capable 
of executing any subset of the Win32 APIs, including without 
exclusion Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP 
Professional, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, PocketPC 
2002, and successors to the foregoing, including the products 
currently code named ``Longhorn'' and 
``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades, 
bug fixes, service packs, etc.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Feldbauer



MTC-00017084

From: Bret Jordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I truly believe 
that they have to much power in forcing us to use their products and 
do things their way. For example, even though they claim that you 
can remove IE from their new WinXP product. You really can not. 
Their remove mechanism that they offer only removes the ICON from 
the desktop.
    I am also not saying that you just dissolve the company to the 
point where the stock market suffers. But there has to be more 
stringent guidelines that could be put in place that will protect 
the end users and Microsoft's intellectual property.
    Thanks for listening.
    Bret Jordan
    2175 S TEXAS
    SLC, UT 84109 
    Bret Jordan
    Dean's Office
    LAN Manager
    College of Engineering
    801.585.3765
    University of Utah
    223 KENNB
    [email protected] 



MTC-00017085

From: Michael Darrin Tisdale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have decided to write this email to voice my opposition to the 
DOJ's proposed settlement with Microsoft. There is one key provision 
in it which I feel makes many of the other provisions null and void; 
thereby rendering much of the agreement worthless and the market 
effectively more anti-competitive.
    One of the key definitions in the Agreement allows Microsoft to 
determine to whom it will license access to APIs and the like. 
Section III (J)(C) allows Microsoft to reject licensors from 
accessing its APIs, Documentation, or Communication Protocols to 
those that meet Microsoft's criteria for a business: the licensor 
must ``...(c) meet(s) reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, ...'' Further, Section III (D) 
restricts the types of licensors for its ``middleware'' by 
defining independent software vendors, and others to only those that 
specify a direct commercial concern-in effect, a profit 
oriented organization. Lastly, even the US Government would be 
disqualified from licensing the technology for its solutions, as the 
US Government would not meet those requirements.
    Of course, the major challenge to Microsoft today is not from 
businesses but from the Open Source community, one in which people 
do not desire to directly profit from their works. Since products 
like SAMBA, an interoperable version of Microsoft's file sharing 
system, are not from a business according to Microsoft, Microsoft 
would be able to kill off its primary competitor by refusing to 
license any information about its protocols. SAMBA depends upon this 
information to make its product compatible. Without access to that 
information, they would be unable to continue producing their 
product. Strangely enough, then, Microsoft gets to determine its 
competitors, something I have never known any company to be able to 
do in its market. Only companies which meet Microsoft's standards 
for a business would be accepted; as these businesses would be at a 
clear distribution, marketing, and licensing disadvantage compared 
with Microsoft, the opportunity for real competition would fade 
away.
    As a developer who uses both Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
products together, I have always struggled to achieve my goals as 
Microsoft has always hoarded its proprietary formats so that they 
control the information. I depend on interoperability, not single 
source solutions. That approach gives my clients a choice, the key 
advantage to a market, in their operations. If the current Agreement 
is approved, I am sorely afraid that I will no longer be able to 
offer that choice to my clients. Sadly, the market will become more 
monopolistic and ultimately defeat the goal of the Agreement.
    I therefore do not support the approval of the Agreement, and I 
strongly urge you do reject it.
    . . . M. Darrin Tisdale



MTC-00017086

From: Michael Bosland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:42pm
Subject: Hi,
    Hi,
    I'd like to add comments to this landmark case which will 
greatly affect me and most other Americans.
    There are many problems with the settlement the DOJ is 
proposing. I won't go into them here, but instead concentrate on one 
area that it does not address.
    Microsoft has been judged in the past to have intentionally 
modified it's products to degrade the user experience of end users 
attempting to use a competitor's product. An example is the 1996 
Caldera vs. Microsoft case. This example shows how Microsoft 
diliberatly degrades it's product to both harm end users and 
competitors. The second harm feeds back into an even greater harm on 
end user by effectively destroying competition. One of the DOJ's 
primary missions is to ensure that competition is not illegally 
suppressed in this fashion.
    The Proposed Final Judgement does nothing to prohibit or even 
discourage this behavior. Therefore the Proposed Final Judgement 
should be either discarded or redrafted to address this issue.
    Thank you for taking the time to hear my view,
    Michael Bosland
    Kirkland, WA



MTC-00017087

From: Brian Rudden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, I have read about the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft

[[Page 26360]]

anti-trust case, and am not in favor of it in it's current state. In 
the past, I have been particularly appalled at Microsoft because of 
it's rampant anti-cometitive and monopolistic nature. In my views, 
the settlement does little to correct Microsoft's past actions, and 
does very little to prevent (or discourage) future anti-competative 
actions. Even during the proceedings, Microsoft has flamboyantly 
persued markets outside of it's core market (Operating systems and 
Applications), all the while hampering competition.
    As an example: Microsoft's recent move into telecommunications, 
Broadband, and Internet Service, with Qwest Communications is 
indication enough that they have no plans to cease their anti-
competetitive nature. In the process, they are injuring the economy 
of local service providers, by making it more difficult to obtain 
Broadband DSL service through another provider.
    I respect the ideas of capitalism and free market, however, 
there has to be a limit to the amount one corporate entity can 
control the market-before the market is no longer free.
    Thank you for your time,
    Brian Rudden
    4850 Osceola St.
    Denver, CO 80212
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00017088

From: Christopher Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust trial. The current settlement proposal 
does not redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor 
stop them committing similar actions in the future.
    The provisions within the current settlement only serve to 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses.
    This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of the 
law. If a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, 
benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    I too want to see a settlement come sooner, rather than later, 
but it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for the sake of 
settling.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher T Palmer



MTC-00017089

From: Tony Notto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to protest the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
One of the many reasons I am opposed to this settlement is that it 
fails to, as the court of appeals stated in their ruling (section 
V.D., p. 99), ``...ensure that there remain no practices likely 
to result in monopolization in the future.''
    For example, the proposed Final Judgement's definition of the 
term ``API'' is overly narrow and excludes Windows APIs 
used by other application programs. This means that Microsoft would 
be able to continue to build means of interaction between its 
operating system and its other software packages, without having to 
make the specifications for that same interaction available to 
developers of competing software packages. Thus, Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices would continues as they have in the past.
    The fact that the Proposed Final Judgement does not address many 
of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices is very serious. Please 
review the PFJ in light of the comments you have received, and amend 
it so that it will no longer have any shortcomings that would allow 
Microsoft to continue it's discriminatory and anti-competitive 
practices. You can find a much more thorough evaluation of the PFJ 
in Dan Kegel's essay available at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html and mirrored at http://crossover.codeweavers.com/
mirror/www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Sincerely,
    Tony Notto
    Student, University of Minnesota



MTC-00017090

From: RW Hawkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in regards to the Microsoft settlement. I have been 
an avid computer user all my life and have seen good technologies 
come and go. That is just the facts of life. I am extremely 
discouraged however when large monopolies such as Microsoft make it 
all but impossible for the little guys to have any chance of 
success.
    In particular Microsoft's historical actions to make their 
software incompatible such as in the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft 
example is disheartening. I hope one day to be a member of a 
successful computer company that gives users total choice over their 
hardware, software and applications. I foresee a future where this 
is impossible if some measures are not taken against Microsoft.
    Additionally I see Microsoft moving into areas where they have 
not been before in order to control the games our kids play, the 
music we listen to even the photographs we take. As a photographer I 
am shocked about the new digital photography software they have 
introduced in Windows XP for free that will do to Kodak what 
Internet Explorer did to Netscape, all but destroy it.
    I hope you will listen to my opinions in calling for a remedy 
that somehow levels the playing field for us ``small 
guys''. Any settlement must have some aspect of punishment for 
past regressions but more importantly imposed controls to prevent 
Microsoft from doing what they have done in the past in todays very 
different and changing environment.
    Thank you,
    Richard Hawkins
    Sunnyvale, CA



MTC-00017091

From: Steven Patt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to object to any proposed settlement of the suit 
against Microsoft which does not deal with the future consequences 
of past ill-gotten gains. Microsoft has gained billions upon 
billions of dollars by employing tactics which have been determined 
to be illegal.
    Our company is a successful company developing software for Palm 
handhelds. Microsoft, which most certainly does not have a monopoly 
in the handheld market, and is also for the most part (at least as 
far as I can tell, but I may be wrong) not using 
``linking'' with their existing monopolies to extend their 
reach into the handheld market (i.e., they are not including a 
PocketPC handheld with each copy of Windows), STILL is using its 
billions in ill-gotten gains to market that product and gain market 
share from Palm, to the detriment of Palm, Inc. and to companies 
such as ours which develop software for PalmOS handheld units.
    In my opinion, the ONLY equitable solution would be to 
confiscate (i.e., fine) ALL of Microsoft's ill-gotten gains and 
``level the playing field''.
    Steve Patt
    President, Stevens Creek Software
    [email protected]



MTC-00017092

From: Peter Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The basic finding that Microsoft is guilty of anti-trust 
violations screams for much broader remedies than those currently 
proposed. Microsoft must not be allowed to return to anticompetitive 
behavior as a normal way of doing business. I strongly reject the 
proposed settlement and request the court to reconsider options to 
better restrict the ability of Microsoft to return to its 
monopolistic ways.
    Thank you.
    Peter Clark
    550 Greenwich Street
    San Francisco, CA 94133
    (415) 433-5033



MTC-00017093

From: Dan Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am the founder of a small, struggling computer software 
company. I do not believe that the proposed final judgment against 
Microsoft goes nearly far enough. Microsoft

[[Page 26361]]

has done so much to damage the computer industry; their punishment 
must be *far* greater than the proposal that I have read.
    Dan Wood
    [email protected]
    http://www.karelia.com/
    Watson for Mac OS X: http://www.karelia.com/watson/



MTC-00017094

From: Scott Cuyle Fritzinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
anti-trust settlement. The settlement is inadequate in several 
areas, but in particular is the disclosure of the Application 
Programming Interfaces (API's) in Microsoft products.
    The provision of the settlement dealing with disclosure of the 
API's does NOT provide adequate language to enforce full-disclosure, 
nor does it even require full-disclosure. The language is too 
tightly worded such that it limits exactly what Microsoft must 
document to other developers. It lists specific Microsoft programs 
and operating systems that are required to be publicly documented in 
regards to the API, but this is not satisfactory.
    Most noticeably missing from the API disclosure list is 
Microsoft SQL Server, which is their flagship database server. 
Microsoft has been using their desktop monopoly to leverage their 
server software, which has been succeeding to the detriment of 
competition from other server products. If allowed to continue, this 
illegal practice will allow Microsoft to further force its insecure 
server software onto consumers. What happens if most Fortune 500 
businesses have to run SQL Server and a bug/vulnerability is found 
in that software? The core businesses that are the landmark of 
commerce in this country will be left vulnerable to hackers 
worldwide.
    That would be an embarrassment to this country.
    Another problem with the settlement is that, by specifying 
specific software names and versions, you allow Microsoft to simply 
rename/rebrand products after the settlement goes into effect and 
therefore circumvent the API disclosure protections. Consider what 
happens if they were to rename Windows Media Player to 
``Windows Media Runner'' or something else? It is no 
longer the same official product, therefore not bound to the API 
disclosure protections.
    I will not even go into the problems this creates in regards to 
Microsoft.NET. .NET is a ``next generation'' platform 
that, if not properly documented publicly, will yet again lock 
people into Microsoft products. This is already happening because 
Windows XP has .NET capabilities already included. This is simply 
scary.
    To fix this, you would have to remove the restrictive language 
from the settlement and have Microsoft release the API for ALL of 
their operating systems, regardless of middleware/applications. By 
restricting API disclosure to middleware/operating-system 
combinations, you are giving Microsoft a way around any sort of API 
disclosure requirement built-into the settlement.
    What people are missing through-out this trial is that an 
operating system is simply a foundation for computing. It provides 
the structure for which to run/build other applications. If 
Microsoft keeps secret the part of the foundation that is the 
strongest and uses it only for their applications (secret API's), 
then competitors start off at an EXTREME disadvantage. That's what 
this boils down to and Microsoft knows this.
    Scott Fritzinger
    Reno, NV



MTC-00017095

From: Joseph Manojlovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am taking the time to write this email to voice my concern 
over the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. I am a graduate 
student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Information 
Sciences, and also a consumer of computer products. As both an 
information technology specialist and a consumer, I feel that 
Microsoft has caused great harm, and this proposed settlement in my 
opinion does very little to prevent current and future antitrust 
violations by Microsoft. In fact, the numerous loopholes in the 
current agreement may very well increase Microsoft's power in 
certain markets.
    I may not be a legal expert, but I fail to understand how this 
settlement falls within the realm of established crime and 
punishment. When somebody robs a bank, and are subsequently caught, 
they not only pay back all the stolen money and goods, but are fined 
and imprisoned. If a large company steals billions from consumers by 
leveraging their monopolies, they should be forced to repay their 
illegal gains and also divest themselves of their monopolies. This 
proposed settlement is hardly a punishment for Microsoft, and will 
allow them to continue to dominate current and new markets, adding 
their illegal profits to an ever-growing war chest that runs in the 
tens of billions of dollars now.
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement is simply an illogical 
attempt to help the current economy by letting a large company off 
with a slap on the wrist. It does nothing to curb current and future 
illegal behavior by Microsoft, and certainly provides nothing in the 
way of repriations for past illegal behavior. A much better way to 
help this weak economy would be to really punish Microsoft: break up 
their monopolies, and return their ill-gotten gains to consumers.
    A settlement best serves the needs of all involved in this case. 
Without one, this case will continue to drag out over the next few 
years, with continuing antitrust violations by Microsoft. However, 
this proposed settlement should not be seen as a solution.
    Let us not forget history. Microsoft is in this antitrust trial 
only because they willfully violated a consent decree that was a 
settlement in a past antitrust trial. Microsoft will violate this 
settlement 5 minutes after the signatures are dried. They are a 
predatory company that cannot compete without violating the law. As 
an American citizen, I vote to reject this proposed settlement and 
replace it with one that will both punish Microsoft and restore real 
competition to the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Manojlovich



MTC-00017096

From: Patrick Joyce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: The proposed settlement to the Microsoft antitrust case 
does absolutely
    The proposed settlement to the Microsoft antitrust case does 
absolutely nothing to prevent them from continuing their illegal 
activities. In fact, it condones them continuing and expanding these 
practices.
    A few examples:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional `white box' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    Aren't these textbook examples of anti-competitive practices? 
Hasn't the Justice department slapped Microsoft on the wrist for 
these before? The time for a ``slap on the wrist'' is long 
past. The time for real, effective punishment is now.
    In addition to my vehement rejection of the proposed settlement 
as fair and equitable, I would call into question Mr. Ashcroft's 
motives in this case.
    Anyone with basic knowledge of computers and the law can see how 
this settlement does nothing but support Microsoft's monopoly 
status. Certainly the Attorney General of the United States knows 
this as well, and a investigation into his relationship with 
Microsoft should take place immediately.



MTC-00017097

From: Jeff Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW Suite
    1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
    23 January 2002
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement in the 
antitrust case against

[[Page 26362]]

Microsoft Corporation, as provided for in the Tunney Act. I believe 
the proposed settlement will operate to prevent, rather than foster, 
competition in the market for operating systems and applications, 
and will allow Microsoft to continue its prior anticompetitive 
behavior with little restraint. For example:
-Section III.H.3 of the proposed judgement requires 
independent vendors (ISV's) who offer competing middleware to meet 
``reasonable technical requirements'' seven months before 
new releases of the Windows operating system, but it makes no 
requirement on Microsoft to-disclose-those requriements 
before this deadline. ISV's are thus dependent on the simple 
goodwill of Microsoft to voluntarily disclose those requirements, 
and Microsoft can prevent ISVs from meeting the seven-month deadline 
by simply failing to disclose the requirements in advance.
-Definition U of the proposed judgement limits the definition 
of ``Windows Operating System Product'' to a limited 
subset of the OS products currently offered by Microsoft. It 
excludes current OS products such as Windows CE, Pocket PC, and 
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. This overly narrow definition allows 
Microsoft to maintain its monopoly on Intel-compatible operating 
systems simply by basing some part of its future OS development on 
these excluded OS products and claiming that they are exempt from 
the restrictions of the proposed judgement because of that 
lineage-even if such future products are targeted to the 
desktop/portable computer market currently served by the OS products 
restricteds in the judgement.
    For these reasons and others, I believe the proposed judgement 
will allow Microsoft's current anti-competitive behaviors to 
continue and will thereby prevent the entry of viable competitors 
into the operating systems market. The settlement is therefore not 
in the public interest and should not be adopted without thorough 
revision.
    Jeffry Jones
    Senior Internet Application Developer
    weather.com
    Marietta GA



MTC-00017098

From: Andy Zbikowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on 
the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), namely:
    ï¿½ The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-
compatible competing operating systems
    ï¿½ Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to 
Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even 
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    ï¿½ The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow 
Definitions and Provisions
    ï¿½ The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its 
secret APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered.
    ï¿½ The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace 
Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with 
a competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    ï¿½ The PFJ supposedly applies to 
``Windows'', but it defines that term so narrowly that it 
doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, 
or the X-Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and 
are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    ï¿½ The PFJ fails to require advance notice of 
technical requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing 
middleware simply by changing the requirements shortly before the 
deadline, and not informing ISVs.
    ï¿½ The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible 
middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs to 
demonstrate that their middleware is compatible.
    ï¿½ The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    ï¿½ The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release 
documentation about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    ï¿½ The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which 
software patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-
compatible operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are 
they not infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare 
away potential users.
    ï¿½ The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License 
Terms currently used by Microsoft
    ï¿½ Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing 
terms to keep Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    ï¿½ Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing 
terms to keep Windows apps from running on competing operating 
systems.
    ï¿½ Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by 
large companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the 
number of computers which could run a Microsoft operating 
system-even for computers running competing operating systems 
such as Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 
1994 consent decree.)
    ï¿½ The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft
    ï¿½ Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    ï¿½ The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any 
OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against 
small OEMs-including regional `white box' OEMs 
which are historically the most willing to install competing 
operating systems-who ship competing software.
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on 
Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft 
Office or Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas.
    ï¿½ The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an 
effective enforcement mechanism. I also agree with the conclusion 
reached by that document, namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as 
written allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices 
to continue, would delay the emergence of competing Windows-
compatible operating systems, and is therefore not in the public 
interest. It should not be adopted without substantial revision to 
address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew S. Zbikowski, Minneapolis, MN;
    Information Technology Specalist
    University of Minnesota Computer Science Dept.
    Andy Zbikowski 
    Computer Science/ITLabs Systems Staff
    University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
    Office: AHPCRC #154 Phone: 626-8090
    When in danger, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!



MTC-00017099

From: Eric Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft must be punished for their crime and not be swept 
underneath carpet. Corporate and government department must learn 
that the law is for the people and not these large money laiden 
groups. They are guilty and should be punished, but forced to play 
ball like everyone else.
    Their domination of the market is not helping the consumer, but 
causing more trouble then it is worth. Security holes, buggy 
software, and lack of revealing information to developers to allow 
them to be at the same level as MS's products with hidden APIs and 
other bits of information that would allow others to release better 
apps.
    The OS market should be rip from their hands and sold off.
    Thank you and don't let our rights be trampled over....



MTC-00017100

From: Rich Salz
To: Microsoft ATR,Rich Salz
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: Comments on proposed settlement
    The proposal is seriously insufficient. It assumes they will act 
in good faith, when history clearly shows otherwise; they have yet 
to admit guilt, as a most recent example! A secret three-member 
panel is incapable of enforcement over the world's largest software 
company. I am not a lawyer, and I was able to find many ways to obey 
the letter of the agreement, while still violating the spirit such 
that they could continue to illegally

[[Page 26363]]

monopolize large portions of the computer industry; I cannot begin 
to imagine what loopholes they will find. Finally, I am offended 
that they are being allowed to keep ALL of their illegally-obtained 
profits.
    Zolera Systems, http://www.zolera.com
    Information Integrity, XML Security



MTC-00017101

From: Bill Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    I would just like to say that I disagree the proposed 
settlement.
    I'm annoyed that part of the settlement is that Microsoft will 
be giving away millions of dollars of software to educational 
institutions. This is fine, but Microsoft is deciding how much it is 
worth, not the DOJ. Also, this is furthering the monopoly, the exact 
thing Microsoft was convicted of. This is like punishing a car thief 
by sending her out to steal more cars. This fixes nothing, and 
actually causes more damage.
    I am also very nervous about words in the settlement which say 
that Microsoft is essentially allowed to discriminate against Open 
Source projects, vis a vis publishing of APIs.
    The whole settlement document is written in such a way that 
there is absolutely no curtailing of Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices, and, frankly, it looks to me that this document actually 
*rewards* Microsoft instead of punishing it.
    Sincerely,
    William E. Graham
    Bill Graham-Software Engineer/GIS Analyst
    CompassCom, Inc.
    6770 South Dawson Circle, Unit 1A
    Centennial, Colorado 80112-4224 USA
    Phone-303.680.3221
    Fax-303.766.2488
    [email protected]
    Web-www.compasscom.com



MTC-00017102

From: Andy Vander Meulen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am 69 years old. I am the second of ten children from Dutch 
immigrant parents. I was born in California and moved to Washington 
state when I was 16 years old. My Dad and family were in the dairy 
business and I dropped out of high school to help my Dad on the farm 
he purchased at Sumas, WA. I served my country in the Korean 
conflict and went into the dairy business after I was discharged 
from the service.
    I evolved into milk marketing and it has been my occupation for 
30 years. I had a good understanding of milk pricing numbers but was 
afraid of computers. In 1984 I lost my job with the cooperative and 
cheese plant operation I had put together and had to start all over 
again. I took a class at Skagit Valley College to learn to operate a 
computer.
    I started a new producer cooperative and began marketing their 
milk. I was able to learn to do pricing and spreadsheets using 
Microsoft's ``Works'' program and I still use it today. I 
run this small producer cooperative from my office in my home and we 
have our operating costs the lowest in our area. Microsoft products 
are the most reasonably priced products on the market. I have made a 
good living for my family and I say Microsoft made that possible by 
lowering the cost of software and the products that are available to 
us consumers. My computer and my Microsoft software are the cheapest 
investment I have in my business and what I'm able to do with it.
    We say we are a nation of ``rule of law''. It appears 
to me that we are becoming a nation of ``abused by law''. 
We had a corrupt administration who catered to the cry-baby 
competitors of Microsoft and a bunch of money grubbing attorney 
generals who are just after the money like they did in the tobacco 
debacle.
    It is time to end all this lawyer waste of time and money and 
let competition determine the winners and losers. Microsoft should 
be applauded, not persecuted for what they have made available to us 
average American consumers.
    In closing I would suggest the DOJ keep an eye on AOL. I can't 
hardly watch anything on my satellite dish but it's AOL Time Warner. 
If they have their way, they will control our TV, movies, music, 
internet, software, and computer operating systems.
    Microsoft used their elbows to defend their business against a 
group (including AOL) who sat down together and said ``Let's 
slay the dragon at Redmond''. I say they were guilty of 
collusion.
    I believe the settlement with Microsoft by the DOJ and nine of 
the states is fair to Microsoft, and we the consumers. I would ask 
that the Judge approve this settlement and let's all get back to 
work.
    Respectfully,
    Andy Vander Meulen
    P.O. Box 753
    Mount Vernon, WA 98273
    360/428-1989



MTC-00017103

From: Doug LaRue
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I have over 15 years of experience in the electronics industry 
and I find it very difficult to see Microsoft get away with impeding 
progress every year, with producing inferior product, with 
jeopardizing our national security, with outright control of how we 
communicate. And it's not stopping there. Today they, the Microsoft 
Corporation is selling a computer system at a price lower than the 
cost of production and calling it a ``game console''. This 
``game console'', running Microsoft Windows operating 
system, is the latest effort to control not only how we communicate 
but what we see and hear through our entertainment systems. They 
have used constantly changing file formats of it's office 
applications to keep out competition to the point that PLAIN TEXT is 
about the only common denominator left for written/electronic 
communications and soon they will use their billions in illegally 
obtained funds to finance the control of the media formats brought 
into our homes via cableTV and telephone lines. They used constantly 
changing operating system API's to make sure the competition in the 
application market was months behind them that existing product 
stopped working when a ``new'' upgrade to the operating 
system was released. I could go on and on about how they controlled 
the market and systematically eliminated competition without the 
consumer being able to make a REAL choice.
    As you can tell, I don't think the current 
``settlement'' addresses much of what harm has been done 
by the Microsoft Corporation. I'm amazed that there could be such a 
settlement without the majority of the States. After all the States 
were going to include Microsoft Office and applications in their own 
case but agreed to drop that for a combined effort with the DOJ. 
Another monopoly issue was dropped to get this PROBLEM behind us 
(the people of the USA) and move on. But then the DOJ settles on 
it's own without the States? A settlement with no teeth no less.
    Just look at Section III.A.2. It allows the Microsoft 
Corporation to retaliate against any OEM it wants to that ships/
sells personal computers which contain a competing operating system 
but not one of the Microsoft Corporations operating systems.
    There is almost nothing in this ``settlement'' which 
restores competition and PREVENTS the Microsoft Corporation from 
continuing is behavior in the personal computer, business server, 
home entertainment, and handheld computing markets. I'm sure there 
are others too.
    The damage the Microsoft Corporation has done has actually 
reduced our productivity. The IBM Corporation shipped an operating 
system back in 1991 which used as it's desktop foundation a 
technology called CORBA. The operating system was years ahead of the 
Microsoft Corporation in it's design and function.
    Where is it today? Why were so many companies 
``attacked'' my Microsoft Corporate employees to the point 
that billions of dollars could be brought to bear on them if they 
continued to support the superior products from the IBM Corporation? 
Today it is Linux and PalmOS. What about the fact that Microsoft 
built it's own 3D graphics system even though there was an industry 
standard called OpenGL? It took them more than 6 years to get 
something close to OpenGL's capabilities but now again, they 
eliminated competition because the Microsoft Corporations 3D 
graphics systems ONLY RUN ON MICROSOFT operating systems and is 
incompatible with OpenGL. Reinventing the wheel and then only 
allowing the new wheel to fit one buggy/cart is NOT progress.
    Where is the progress if all the Microsoft Corporation does is 
make products/systems which will only run on their operating 
systems? There is a well known term for this in the computer 
industry. It's called:
    EMBRACE/EXTEND/EXTINGUISH
    The proposed settlement does NOT solve the problem or fix what 
damage was done.
    IMHO.
    Kind regards,

[[Page 26364]]

    Doug
    Doug LaRue
    President
    Pellico Systems
    San Diego, CA.
    phone: 858.272.7509 fax: 858.483.1096
    email: [email protected]
    http://www.pellico.com



MTC-00017104

From: Chris Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I think the currently proposed Microsoft settlement is bad. It 
allows Microsoft to continue to act in an illegal manner and does 
not punish them enough for their past transgressions.
    Regards,



MTC-00017105

From: Gaylord Holder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft vs. DOJ Settlement
    I have been a computer professional for more than 20 years, 
working for the US Air Force, several universities, and priviate 
companies.
    When I began, Microsoft, and Microsoft products where an island 
of stability in the confusing chaos of PCs. By buying the operating 
system and office suite from the same company, one often got a more 
stable machine than one might have getting DR-DOS, and Word 
Perfect. I liked those early versions of MS-Word, and Excel.
    Soon, I began hearing that Microsoft wasn't fixing 
bugs-not just in Word, or Excel, but in more important 
things-such as the compiler, or communications drivers. 
Developers I worked with refused to use Microsoft products because 
they were buggy and crashed their systems. In the ``90's I 
started having first hand experience developing software with 
Microsoft products. I soon found I could triple my productivity if I 
developed the software on Unix platform and back ported the code to 
PCs. The Microsoft development environment provided no way to 
integrate a 3rd party editor, no way to track revisions to the code, 
the debugging was primative and often wrong, and the compiler often 
didn't work as documented. All of these problems had be dealt with 
under Unix 5-7 years previously. It was a toy development 
environment.
    Since then, Microsoft has increased its presence in my 
professional life. I am bombarded with MS-Word and MS-Excel 
attachments, my customers are required to use MS-Windows to do their 
jobs. At every turn, I have consistantly found Microsoft software be 
buggy, bloated, insecure, and difficult to administer.
    For the last 10 years of my professional life, Microsoft 
products have consistantly demonstrated the function of their 
software is not to help my user's do their jobs, but to premote 
Microsoft and its commerical partners. Whether it is the Internet 
Connection Wizard plugging Microsoft's Email accounts, or SmartTags 
trying to push browsers to Microsoft sites, Microsoft doesn't care 
for the person or business who bought their products, only their 
next source of revenue.
    Microsoft has been proven to be a monoply. It should be treated 
like one. Splitting the company into operating systems, 
applications, and networking, would break the costly, and wasteful 
cycle of having to upgrade the OS to run Microsoft Office and having 
to upgrade Microsoft Office to run on the new OS. Most of all, it 
would certainly Microsoft Office make compete with other Office 
suites on technical terms. It would certainly force Microsoft to 
listen to its customers in a way I haven't seen it do since the 
early 1980s, and it could well let loose a new wave of computer 
innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Gaylord Holder



MTC-00017106

From: Jennifer Teig von Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Many small companies have 
ceased to exist because of Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should 
become a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops 
to an acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of its 
competitors is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft 
product lines, before regulation is lifted. Even after being found 
guilty of being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not 
changed. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe 
criminal penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I 
can see will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a 
state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Yours,
    Jennifer Teig von Hoffman
    50 Dighton Street
    Boston, MA 02135



MTC-00017107

From: Jerry W. Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Microsoft has been convicted of breaking antitrust laws. In 
breaking these laws, they've hurt hundreds of companies and 
thousands of employees. Worse, they've hurt the general public in 
pushing substandard software into a market in which nearly any other 
software choice, no matter how much better that software might be, 
pits the user against compatibility with the rest of the world.
    This substandard software includes Microsoft Outlook which, 
despite industry knowledge of effective security measures that dates 
back for more than a decade, still manages to distribute computer 
viruses whose total damage to the US economy probably outweighs any 
penalty that could be imposed on Microsoft.
    This is not the first time that Microsoft has been tried for 
such behavior. In the earlier trial, they agreed to a consent decree 
which they flouted. This second case comes directly from their 
flouting the orders of the court in the earlier case and continuing 
the damage to the industry and to the public that they were first 
charged with.
    The proposed settlement does not punish Microsoft for this 
behavior, but rather supports their arrogant flouting of the law by 
pushing their substandard products into the education market with 
government support. Further, by specifying the 
``punishment'' as a mandate to put so many millions of 
dollars of software into the schools, the court allows this 
criminally arrogant company to set the monetary value of their own 
punishment as best befits their marketing plans. They can set the 
value of that software at any price that pleases them.
    If I were charged with assault for beating up my neighbors when 
they parked their cars on my street making it less convenient for me 
to park there, and the courts decided that to punish me they would 
make me paint lines anywhere I wanted on the street to mark where I 
would like to park, I would probably have little incentive to follow 
the law the next time it was inconvenient for me to do so.
    The courts, we hope, provide incentives to follow the law, not 
vice-versa. Please reject this settlement and demand something that 
serves as a deterrent to Microsoft and to other corporations that 
choose to flout the law.
    One hopes that in our democracy such companies don't obtain 
royal concessions for behavior that harms the populace.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry W. Walker
    -Jerry W. Walker
    Software Process Manager, c o d e f a b
    [email protected]
    212 462 1004 [116] office
    212 462 1043 fax



MTC-00017108

From: Joe Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I'm writing to oppose the antitrust case against Microsoft. 
Antitrust contradicts the free enterprise system and is a violation 
of the rights of business owners, their stockholders and consumers. 
No one is or ever has been forced to buy Microsoft products. And no 
one at Microsoft has forcibly stopped anyone from buying non-
Microsoft products. There is a free market in software though 
Microsoft's competitors would like you to believe otherwise.
    Consider the fact that, if I'm looking for an operating system I 
have a choice of Apple, OS/2, Unix and Linux among others. For word 
processing, I have Wordperfect and others. For web browsing, I can 
still get Netscape or use AOL's juvenile interface. In fact I use 
Netscape and like it better than MS-Internet Explorer.
    Microsoft is being prosecuted for monopoly. Yet not so long ago, 
Netscape had

[[Page 26365]]

100% of the browser market and the antitrust warriors did nothing 
about it. If 80% or 90% of a market is considered monopolistic, than 
why wasn't 100%? But that would be assuming a degree of rationality 
and logic that is unknown to antitrust.
    Of course what Netscape really had is what Microsoft now has: 
market dominance. As soon as IE came on the market, consumers voted 
with their dollars and chose it over Netscape to the point that IE 
became the dominant product and Netscape fell so far by the wayside 
that it basically went out of business, to be ``saved'' by 
AOL. Did Microsoft force it out of business? No. The sum total of 
consumer choices in the free market put it out of business.
    Instead of focusing on, filing suits against and lobbying 
antitrust officials to charge Microsoft with evil acts, the gang of 
competitors should look at their own failure to penetrate the 
market. Instead of griping and enlisting the power of the government 
to punish Microsoft for succeeding, they should look at the reasons 
for their own failure. And they are failures. They put products, 
software and services on the market in competition with Microsoft. 
The market voted with it's dollars and they lost. They are losers, 
not because of some alleged Microsoft skullduggery, but because of 
the market rejected them. The market considered Microsoft products 
superior and theirs inferior. That's the American way. But the cabal 
composed of loser competitors and money grubbing attorneys general 
would like to subvert this system and impose force and regulation 
upon the free market. They want to deny Microsoft's rights to 
produce a product and present it to the market for sale. The want to 
deny consumer's rights to buy Microsoft's products on a free market. 
They want to force products on the market which have already been 
rejected by the market.
    Sun Microsystems, Netscape, Oracle and now AOL want to use the 
predatory power of government to skew the market in their favor. 
They want the government to protect them from the free market. They 
have no interest in being competitive. They're doing all they can to 
get a competitor, Microsoft, choked to death by antitrust. 
Strangely, this is not considered a violation of the antitrust laws. 
It is not even considered bad conduct. In fact these are praised by 
many, including such institutions as the vaunted New York Times. But 
that's the nature of antitrust: contradiction and irrationality. 
When one company does something, it is praiseworthy; when another 
company does exactly the same thing, it is accused of being a 
criminal.
    In fact, neither the losers nor the attorneys general believe in 
a free market at all. What they believe in is fascism, a political 
system in which there is nominal ownership of property, but under 
which decisions about the use of the property are made by the 
government. The political system in the USA today is a peculiar 
admixture of fascism and socialism, not the republic of limited 
government power that the Founders designed.
    A monopoly exists only when a company has the power to prohibit 
competition. They only way any company can gain that kind of power 
is through the power of government via regulations, exclusive 
licensing arrangements, tariffs and taxes. No company can achieve, 
much less maintain, a monopoly on the free market, without 
assistance from the government. No company ever has and no company 
ever will.
    Take the case of AT&T prior to de-regulation and 
divestiture. This was a classic case of monopoly. The arrangement 
AT&T had with the local, state and federal governments was such 
that it was illegal to sell competing products and it was illegal to 
connect them should you somehow obtain them. You couldn't even 
provide an alternative telephone directory without violating the 
law. There were many companies capable of providing telephones and 
telephone service and many who wanted to. But it was illegal for 
them to do so. Competition with AT&T was prohibited by law.
    In no way is Microsoft like pre-deregulated, pre-divested 
AT&T. In no way is Microsoft a monopolist.
    A company may attain market dominance through offering better 
products and/or lower priced products, by providing better customer 
service and by being aggressively competitive. But that's not 
monopolization. Any other company is free to produce a better 
product, provide better service, charge lower prices and be even 
more aggressively competitive and itself become the dominant 
company. That's the way the free enterprise system works.
    Antitrust is a notorious contradiction of the principles of free 
enterprise involving violations of property rights on a massive 
scale. The history of antitrust is one of incredible irrationality 
and injustice. Rather than continue this immoral course of action, 
it should be stopped dead. Antitrust laws should be repealed.
    For all the reasons cited above, I oppose the imposition of any 
penalties on Microsoft. They have done nothing wrong, they have 
violated no one's rights, they have broken no legitimate law. The 
case should be thrown out of court.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Wright
    81 Irving Place-Apt. 6G
    New York, NY 10003
    Tel: 212-244-5488 x134



MTC-00017109

From: Miles, Dave
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating systems, Internet browsers, desktop 
applications, application development languages, and (soon) 
networking markets, nor limit its ability to unfairly dominate new 
markets such as game consoles, personal video recorders, and 
Internet service providers.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's 
previous actions. There are no provisions that correct or redress 
their previous abuses. The provisions weakly attempt to prohibit the 
future repetition of those abuses. The provisions do not even 
attempt to address serious issues such as application file formats 
which Microsoft changes only to limit competition. This, in my 
opinion, goes against the very foundation of justice. If a person or 
organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those 
acts, and then receive as a ``punishment'' instructions 
that they cannot commit those acts again, they have still benefited 
from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of 
their abuses, and not for the American people.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Yours Very Truly,
    David Miles
    KPMG LLP
    Risk and Advisory Services
    Office: 602.452.4266
    Cell: 602.820.4109
    [email protected]



MTC-00017110

From: Matthew S. Woodworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00017111

From: Wouter Van Hemel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir, Madam,
    I would hereby like to express my doubts about the effectiveness 
of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. I am sincerly 
concerned about Microsoft's position in the software market, and I 
don't believe the proposition lives up to the harm done in the past, 
nor does it provide enough of a remedy for the future. Mellow as it 
is, half a punishment will reduce itself to no punishment at all 
with a company that has the financial power Microsoft has; words 
will be bent, restrictions circumvented, new tricks will be learned, 
and legal statements adapted, reducing what's already too small a 
price to pay, to basically nothing. Strong, adequate measures should 
be taken against Microsoft-being fully accountable for their 
actions-so as to ensure that at least something's left after 
Washington lobby'ing and stretching legal phrases beyond 
recognition. It should not be let off easily, clearly still not 
having understood the message.
    Thanks for listening.
    Wouter Van Hemel



MTC-00017112

From: George Talbot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26366]]

    To whom it may concern:
    My name is George Talbot, a software designer from Philadelphia. 
I work for Lucent, Inc. My opinions stated here is not intended to 
reflect the opinions of my employer.
    I'm rather discouraged at the Microsoft settlement. The current 
settlement, as proposed does nothing about Microsoft using its 
combined dominance in operating systems and office products to 
restrict the spread of new and possibly competitive software 
technolgies by coercing vendors into Microsoft-only solutions via 
restrictions and pricing of said operating system and office 
products.
    Thank you for your time.
    George T. Talbot



MTC-00017113

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust case. In my opinion, Microsoft used its monopoly power over 
the years to suppress technology that would have provided great 
benefit to consumers across the United States. One example of this 
is the ``NSP'' initiative that Intel proposed, but was 
forced to discard because of monopoly pressure tactics from 
Microsoft.
    The proposed settlement is carefully worded by Microsoft's own 
lawyers to provide loopholes so that Microsoft can continue these 
tactics for any activity Microsoft considers important in the 
future. This will not foster innovation or improved technology for 
the user, but only tighten Microsoft's grip on access to important 
new technology by ordinary consumers.
    Please revisit this case and form a settlement that will limit 
Microsoft's ability to prevent new technology and ideas from 
reaching consumers that do not know what they have been denied.
    Thank you.
    Kris Bosland
    503-324-0573
    12711 NW Maplecrest
    Way Banks, Oregon 97106



MTC-00017114

From: Matt DAHLMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a US citizen, I feel strongly that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement will not be beneficial to the citizens of the US. I urge 
the Department of Justice to continue its prosecution of the case 
and to continue pursuing the originally recommended resolution of 
breaking Microsoft into 2 separate companies.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Dahlman
    [email protected]



MTC-00017115

From: Gordon Tetlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm very disappointed in the PFJ that has been put forth by the 
DOJ to punish Microsoft for it's actions. It is no more than a slap 
on the wrist. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it helps to 
continue and extend the monopoly power that Microsoft has over home/
office computing sector. There is one simple thing in the PFJ that I 
believe helps Microsoft's monopoly. The PFJ allows Microsoft to 
raise artificial barriers to those that are interested in creating a 
Windows-compatible operating system. While the PFJ does mandate that 
MS must publish its APIs ``for the sole purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product''. This 
clause specifically disallows companies/individuals to use the 
information that Microsoft is compelled to disclose to create an 
alternative operating system which would still be able to run 
applications created for Windows, thus helping competition and 
giving consumers an alternative to a Microsoft operating system.
    There are other points that I have contention with, but I do not 
have time to read the entire PFJ and critique them all. I sincerely 
hope that the DOJ does the right thing when it comes to the final 
judgement and gives the public a choice when it comes to home/office 
operating systems.
    Sincerely,
    Gordon Tetlow
    UNIX System Administrator
    The opinions that I express here are my own and don't reflect in 
any way the opinions of my employer.



MTC-00017116

From: John Hawks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft Antitrust Comments
c/o Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing as a public comment to the proposed settlement in 
the case of U.S. v. Microsoft. As a background, I am employed by the 
University of Utah and currently work as a research scientist in 
paleoanthropology. I would like to comment on the settlement in 
terms of its effect on me as a consumer and as a researcher working 
with public funds. In brief, the proposed agreement does not address 
several distinct areas in which the illegal extension of Microsoft's 
operating systems monopoly harms the public interest.
    One of the largest research expenditures both by universities 
and by individual researchers using NSF or NIH monies is computer-
related technology. Currently, much of the public money spent by 
researchers is wasted on Microsoft products that are never used. 
Here in my laboratory, there are five copies of Microsoft Windows 
software that are sitting unopened and unused. These are software 
that ``came with'' the computers that we use in the lab, 
but that we do not use and have never used. However, Microsoft has 
agreements with many systems vendors to package a copy of Microsoft 
Windows with every computer sold, regardless of whether the customer 
wants it or not. Even if the customer requests that Microsoft 
Windows not be included with the computer, the manufacturer is still 
required by agreement to pay Microsoft for a copy of the software 
for that computer. Manufacturers do not provide discounts for 
systems that lack Windows. Other Microsoft software, such as 
Microsoft Office, is also often included by manufacturers under 
agreement to Microsoft, again whether the customer wants it or not.
    For my own use, and in cases in the laboratory where I have the 
choice, I build my own computers from components, thus avoiding the 
unnecessary expenditure on unused Microsoft products. However, most 
universities, including mine and the University of Michigan where I 
formerly worked, have purchasing agreements with computer 
manufacturers, providing discounts for volume purchases, where 
individual computers may be requested by many different departments 
during the year. Small manufacturers exist who do not require the 
unnecessary purchase of Microsoft products, but the large 
manufacturers able to supply the needs of a research university are 
also the ones most likely to have exclusive agreements with 
Microsoft. Thus, universities using public money and individual 
researchers inside those universities are predominantly forced to 
purchase Microsoft products, whether they are wanted or not. The 
retail cost of the Microsoft Windows software, purchased with public 
money but unused in my laboratory, is over five hundred dollars. 
This is a cost imposed on the public and consumers by Microsoft's 
illegal extension of its monopoly.
    The proposed settlement does not restrict Microsoft from 
pursuing exclusive agreements with systems vendors, and it does not 
allow any recourse for consumers or institutions who would like to 
purchase a computer from a large systems manufacturer without 
Microsoft software. There are many reasons to choose such a 
manufacturer instead of a smaller shop, including availability of 
support, rapid replacement of defective units, and volume discounts. 
However, consumer choice in this matter is limited by the illegal 
licensing used by Microsoft. I would propose that the agreement be 
extended to forbid these contracts, so that any consumer may choose 
to purchase a system without Microsoft software.
    Instead of Microsoft products in my laboratory and home, I use 
Linux, free operating system alternative. Again, there are reasons 
why a consumer would choose to use a Microsoft product instead of 
Linux despite its zero price, including ease of use and availability 
of software titles. I would not expect Microsoft to provide 
applications software on other platforms to erode its monopoly, as 
some might propose. However, one aspect of Microsoft's operating 
systems strategy stands out as harmful to consumers, and an illegal 
extension to its monopoly power. This aspect is the creation and 
spread of proprietary standards and file formats.
    Users who create content with Microsoft products often use the 
software to create digital copies of the content with Microsoft's 
proprietary formats. For example, users of

[[Page 26367]]

Microsoft Word save documents in ``.doc'' format. The 
encoding scheme used by such formats is secret and undocumented by 
Microsoft. Users who wish to use other software packages will be 
unable to read the complete content of documents created with 
Microsoft software in this way. Nevertheless, the monopoly of 
Microsoft has allowed it to make its proprietary file formats into 
de facto standards, so that many companies and universities use 
``.doc'' format for internal correspondence, for example. 
This extension of monopoly power to file formats has inhibited the 
adoption of non-Microsoft operating systems like Linux, because no 
Microsoft applications product exists on that operating system to 
perfectly read Microsoft file formats. It has been reported that 
abuse of file formats may be more widespread, with applications like 
the web-document producing FrontPage producing content for public 
use that can only be interpreted by Microsoft Internet Explorer, for 
example, and not by alternative products like Netscape Navigator. 
Microsoft changes these proprietary formats with almost every new 
release, so that users are forced to upgrade their software in order 
to continue to interchange documents with other users. All of this 
inhibits the use of non-Microsoft operating systems and 
applications. Further, Microsoft has attempted to extend proprietary 
standards to public operational systems, such as networking 
protocols and interoperability software including Java. Indeed, 
after Sun corporation brought suit against Microsoft for illegally 
creating its own proprietary version of Java, Microsoft changed its 
interoperability strategy to a new proprietary standard that it 
controls. If left to extend its monopoly in this way, Microsoft will 
limit the ability of alternative operating systems like Linux to 
interact with public applications, including internet banking and 
secure transactions of all kinds. The public standards now used as 
the basis of the Internet were developed largely with public money 
and are free for anyone to use. If Microsoft is allowed to extend 
its operating systems monopoly to public Internet standards, it will 
limit the ability of other operating systems to use public networks.
    What is worse, it will also put the security of all public 
computers at unnecessary risk. Public standards are free for anyone 
to inspect, so that security problems may be circumenvented and no 
secret features are available to be exploited by criminals. In 
contrast, Microsoft's proprietary standards are secret, so that 
people of malicious intent can exploit secret holes to invade 
computer systems, causing millions of dollars in damages. No 
operating system platform is immune to security violations. However, 
in my laboratory, having five computers with continuous Internet 
connections, it would be a serious security risk to use Microsoft 
software instead of Linux. Even if the content of my computers was 
left unharmed by those who would break into them, they could install 
malicious software without my knowledge that could be used to attack 
computer systems elsewhere. We saw this happen many times to 
companies and universities using Microsoft products last year. 
Further, my computers cannot be affected by e-mail and macro viruses 
that attack users of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word through 
attachments with the ``.doc'' format. In short, the 
extension of proprietary formats creates an unnecessary security 
risk, which I cannot afford in my laboratory, and the U.S. cannot 
afford in the current war.
    Finally, it is possible to alter operating systems like Linux to 
run Microsoft applications, or other applications written for the 
Microsoft Windows operating system, without needing the Windows 
software to be purchased or installed. This alternative provides a 
good compromise for many people, who wish to use products available 
only for the Windows platform, but do not wish to risk the security 
holes or other problems with Windows itself. However, this kind of 
interoperability is inhibited by the proprietary secret format that 
Microsoft uses to allow applications to interact with its operating 
system. It is necessary for applications to use undocumented 
features of the operating system to be useful, but no non-Microsoft 
implementation of these undocumented features is possible without 
breaking Microsoft confidentiality agreements.
    I would propose that the settlement be extended to force 
Microsoft to publicly release the standards used to create its file 
formats, networking protocols, applications frameworks, and 
operating system toolkits. If the details of these proprietary 
standards were publicly available, it would be possible for 
programmers outside of Microsoft to provide secure implementations 
of public interfaces such as networking protocols. It would also be 
possible to write programs that could read content created by 
Microsoft software, and to extend other operating systems to run 
software configured for Windows. The proposed settlement allows for 
people external to Microsoft to inspect some of these proprietary 
standards, but it does not make the standards public. The difference 
is that a public standard can be implemented without fear of 
violating a Microsoft copyright and can be inspected by anyone who 
uses or wants to use Microsoft products, while a standard merely 
open to inspection may make any public implementation vulnerable to 
a lawsuit. As it stands, the agreement may allow it to continue to 
be impossible for a person saving his or her crucial documents with 
Microsoft's ``.doc'' format to even know how those 
documents are encoded, or to be able to recover those documents if 
the user should later choose to use non-Microsoft products instead.
    Without minimally these alterations, the settlement does not 
address the problems I find in lay work with Microsoft's operating 
systems monopoly. This makes the proposed settlement a failure in 
addressing the harm that Microsoft has done to consumers by the 
illegal extension of its monopoly. I hope that the settlement will 
be altered to address these concerns.
    John Hawks
    Department of Anthropology
    University of Utah
    http://www.prehistory.net/hawks.html



MTC-00017117

From: Zachary Schneirov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Concerning the Settlement with Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that the U.S. government must not and cannot allow the 
Microsoft monopoly to continue its current business practices 
without some major punitive action. Microsoft sees any standard over 
which they do not hold total control as a clear and present threat 
to their Windows monopoly. Throughout the years they have 
repeatedly, systematically, and unabashedly set out to undermine and 
ultimately destroy all computing technologies that had the chance to 
interfere with Microsoft's stranglehold on desktop computing. Often 
the company accomplishes this through a policy of 
``embracing'' a standard (in which they integrate it into 
one of their products) and subsequently ``extending'' the 
standard, at which point making the standard incompatible with 
competing products. End-users are consequently forced to use 
Microsoft's solution, as Microsoft has bundled software that makes 
use of this standard into their Windows operating system.
    We have seen this occur with the proprietary Microsoft Word 
document format, numerous internet protocol applications including 
the Netscape and Internet Explorer web browsers, and we are now 
seeing it with digital video playback solutions-QuickTime and 
Windows Media Player. When Microsoft began bundling new versions of 
Windows Media Player that made use of new, proprietary, and patented 
media formats, web sites had no choice but to begin offering most of 
their video content in Windows Media Player format. It has become 
increasingly difficult to do any type of desktop computing without 
running into Microsoft-controlled formats and software.
    If Microsoft continues with this trend (and there is no reason 
that they will not) it will soon become literally impossible to use 
any emerging technology that is not available on Windows; Microsoft 
will have finally taken over the entire field of computing.
    This must not be allowed to happen. A strong, crippling 
punishment is the only solution.
    Regards,
    Zachary Schneirov



MTC-00017118

From: Devon Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am a programmer, and computer specalist. And I heartily feel 
that the courts accepting the Microsoft settlement is a travesty of 
justice. The proposed settlement does little to mitigate the damage 
that the Microsoft OS monopoly does to many sectors of the computer 
economy. Even more damaging is the effect on the Open Source/Free 
Software community and businesses.
    Probably the single most damaging aspect of the remedy is that 
it does not force

[[Page 26368]]

Microsoft to disclose publically the workings of it's file formats. 
The cornerstone of the MS monopoly is it's applications.
    Those applications create a giagantic barrier to entry, and 
allow Microsoft to decide which Operating Systems will be taken 
seriously in the office. No other operating system will be able to 
compete on an even footing unless the file formats are made public. 
This will facilitate competing packages such as StarOffice, Lotus 
Smartsuite, and Corel Office being able to actually enter the market 
place, and still be able to read documents from the incredibly large 
installed base of Microsoft Office. Only when this has happened will 
competing desktop operating systems be able to even have a chance in 
the market.
    The second most damaging issue about the settlement is that it 
almost seems designed to legalize the status quo of microsoft's 
monopoly control of the industry. Steps need to be taken in a final 
settlement to not only open the application business to competetion 
(so that situations such as that surrounding Netscape do not happen 
again), but to also open the marketplace to other operating systems.
    Please do not allow this settlement to go through that not only 
keeps many of the barriers to entry that MS has created, but also 
errects some new berriers to entry.
    thank you,
    Devon Jones
    Integware Inc.



MTC-00017119

From: John Craig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a US Citizen, taxpayer, and technology consumer, I want to 
express my opposition to the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
Antitrust case. The main reason for my opposition is that the 
proposed remedies do nothing to deprive Microsoft of the ill-gotten 
gain which they obtained by breaking the law. There is nothing to 
discourage Microsoft from breaking the law again to suit their 
needs. They can certainly extract large enough illicit profits to 
pay for the legal fees associated with a new trial. They did it 
before, with DOS, and they will do it again (perhaps this time with 
.NET). For Microsoft, violating antitrust law is a very lucrative 
practice. Where is the concern for law and order? The Department of 
Justice must insist that Microsoft forfeit ill-gotten gains which 
resulted from antitrust violations.
    Sincerely,
    John Craig Gainesville, Florida



MTC-00017120

From: Scott McCormick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Hesse,
    I strongly oppose the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti 
trust case. Some of the proposed remedies are in fact so favorable 
to Microsoft that they are akin to throwing Br'er Rabbit into the 
briar patch. I agree with the analysis of Dan Kegel which can be 
found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Yours truly,
    Dr. Scott McCormick
    President
    ESM Software
    Dr. Scott McCormick
    [email protected]
    ESM Softwarehttp://www.esm-software.com/
    2234 Wade Court(513) 738-4773
    Hamilton, OH 45013(216) 274-9026 (fax)



MTC-00017121

From: Castro, David
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not happy with the Microsoft settlement as proposed. There 
seem to be a number of problems with it.
    One problem that bothers me is that the settlement does not do 
enough to limit the way Microsoft exercises monopoly power over OEMs 
and ISVs. Microsoft retaliates against vendors who ship hardware 
with competing OSs and software; they do not allow vendors to ship 
their software along with competing (eg. open source) software. In 
particular the settlement allows microsoft to retaliate against 
small, local vendors. As a result, vendors who ship microsoft 
software and Windows-compatible hardware (ie. most vendors) shy away 
from competing software; microsoft's competition and the market are 
hurt by this.
    In general I feel that the settlement preserves the status quo 
in terms of MS's anticompetitive behavior. The goal is to have a 
competitive software market, in which the user has a choice of 
products. This goal is not served by the current settlement, which 
allows microsoft to continue its behavior to the customer's 
detriment.



MTC-00017122

From: Nigel Olding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. There are too 
many loopholes for Microsoft to continue its'' predatory 
business practices.
    Nigel Olding
    Consultant
    Folsom, CA.



MTC-00017123

From: Nick Zajerko-McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe the current settlement offer is 
correct-it gives MS no real penalty.



MTC-00017124

From: Walsh, Steve (SIS)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.



MTC-00017125

From: Charles Wiltgen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    I fully support Dan Kegel's open letter to the DOJ.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Charles Wiltgen
    Product Manager
    PacketVideo



MTC-00017126

From: Justin Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW.,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    As a computer professional involved with the industry for the 
last 15 years, I can only express my dismay at the proposed 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. I have watched for the last 15 
years as Microsoft has relentlessly used its monopoly power to 
squash all possible competition, through such means as purposefully 
introducing incompatibilities with competing products, inadequately 
documenting API's, not providing enough advanced notice to outside 
developers of changes in the API's such that they could modify their 
products to work properly on new OS versions, product dumping, and 
forcing illegal, anti-competitive distribution agreements on 
distributors, among many other tactics.
    The remedy proposed by the Justice Department will not stop any 
of these practices. Through overly narrow, ridiculous definitions of 
terms like ``API''; the allowance of Enterprise licensing 
agreements similar to OEM licenses banned by the 1994 consent 
decree; the failure of the agreement to prohibit purposefully 
introduced

[[Page 26369]]

incompatibilities; the failure of the agreement to require timely 
dissemination (i.e., months prior to release of betas) of technical 
documentation such that it can be ensured competing products work on 
new OS versions; the failure of the agreement to make allowances for 
open source and third-party Windows-compatible operating systems 
(which, under current Microsoft End-User license agreements, may not 
be used in conjunction with Windows systems or run Microsoft 
software in any way); inadequate protections against anti-
competitive distribution agreements with OEM's and distributors; 
and, finally, the lack of any effective enforcement mechanisms, the 
proposed agreement will be yet another feather in Microsoft's hat. 
By no means is the remedy one that will ``unfetter a market 
from anticompetitive conduct'' or ``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 a concerned citizen I would ask that the proposed remedy be 
reconsidered and a more stringent and effective remedy be designed. 
One might ask, ``Has Microsoft's monopoly hurt the public 
interest?'' The unequivocal answer I must give is 
``Yes!'' Many superior, better-designed, more reliable 
products have been released and fallen by the wayside over the 
years, as Microsoft has shut their makers out of the market. The 
next time Word crashes and you lose your document, the next time the 
computer eats your spreadsheet, please keep in mind that Linux and 
Sun's Solaris operating systems have built their reputations by 
going multiple YEARS between crashes, and that many people run text 
editors like GNU Emacs continuously for months at a time without a 
crash, and have never had a lost document. The reliability issues 
most Windows users experience has nothing to do with inherent 
complexity, and everything to do with shoddy software engineering. 
Competition in a fair marketplace is the key to improving quality, 
regardless of who in the end makes the software.
    Sincerely,
    Justin Miller
    Senior Software Architect
    Oculus Technologies Corp.
    Boston, Massachusetts



MTC-00017127

From: Eric Wallin
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in support of the proposed Microsoft settlement. I work in 
the technology industry, and deal with Microsoft and its 
competitors, and see no distinction between the business practices 
of either group. This is America, and capitalism will prevail.
    Eric Wallin-Technology Architect
    Rare Medium Atlanta
    email: [email protected]
    phone: 770.576.4328



MTC-00017128

From: Gary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this email to indicate that I am opposed to the 
proposed settlement in relation to the Microsoft antitrust case.



MTC-00017129

From: David Whedon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    Microsoft maintains its monopoly power by keeping file formats 
proprietary and thus preventing interoperability. The PFJ should do 
more to enable interoperability through open file formats.
    -David Kimdon
    Berkeley, CA



MTC-00017130

From: John Vann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, John Vann, object to the settlement. It is not well defined 
enough to assure Microsoft's compliance with anti-trust laws.



MTC-00017131

From: Adam Rakunas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I think the settlement the Department of Justice has made with 
Microsoft, Inc., is a bad idea. In its current form, it will not 
open up the market to true competition. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Adam Rakunas
    1044 14th Street
    Santa Monica, CA
    90403
    310.394.7404



MTC-00017132

From: Eric Laffoon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:49pm
Subject: Preserve our future by restraining a bully
    Hello,
    I've read that you are still receiving comments by law in this 
case. As someone who has suffered long with Microsoft I would like 
to say something. While the outcome of the case is decided it is 
meaningless without applying penalty and restriction. Perhaps there 
may be some restraint looking fully into their history? during the 
trial there were many people paraded through telling of the 
``trail of broken bodies'' left by Microsoft tactics. The 
fact that they have been in antitrust litigation three times in the 
last decade (if memory serves) is telling. What it says is 
``all previous attempts to restrain illegal monopolistic 
behavior have failed''.
    Here is one brief illustration from the early 90s of what to 
expect. I was working on a business proposal on a friends DOS based 
computer and saved it to a file. I went to import it to a Microsoft 
word document at Kinkos. It tried to save the document to the floppy 
as the imported file. However the Word document was so bloated (big 
surprise) that it would not fit and it produced an error dialog 
saying it could not be saved with a button saying ``OK''. 
But it was not okay! It was an endless loop and did not even offer 
me to abort. This is just plain terrible programming.
    During this time Lotus Ami Pro was a PC Magazine editor's choice 
three years running. They achieved, if memory serves, less than 5% 
market share. certainly less than 10%. Finally Microsoft produced a 
version that beat them and Ami Pro drifted into history. Why did 
people choose word? Because while Ami Pro could read and write Word 
documents Word could not write Ami Pro. Because people are 
inherently too lazy to be expected to remember to select a document 
type when they save a file Ami Pro was considered 
``incompatible'' when in fact it was the other way around. 
During this time the other prevailing attitude was that as flakey as 
software was you were safer with Microsoft since at least they knew 
the internals of Windows.
    Two years later I read that the KNOWN bug that had ruined my day 
had been fixed in a maintenance release of the next version of Word. 
I encountered the problem on 1.0. I believe the release was 2.04g. 
Why did it take so long? Wasn't the focus on quality software? No! 
It was on a fractured feature set that would sufficiently impress 
journalists that did not actually use the programs for work... This 
would be read by managers who did not actually understand the 
programs who would then sign purchase orders. Of course none of this 
mattered that much since the bundled Office with everything back 
then. Currently I use Linux. I do so for several reasons. One is 
that during the 90s I computed the cost of down time from Windows 
and realized i could have bought a new computer every few months 
with the money I was losing. I also found that Microsoft software 
was far less efficient and more expensive than other solutions. 
Among those I found that free software was actually what the 
internet was based upon and it allowed me to have far more software 
than I could ever afford. I now receive documents in proprietary 
Microsoft formats. It is assumed everyone has them. I have to use 
other programs that can read them... painfully aware that mild 
encryption or some absurd patent (like Amazon's ``One 
Click'') could litigate away even free and open solutions. 
Document formats of information exchange should be free and open 
formats like HTML or structured XML. They should fall under 
standards committees so that more than one player could be there. At 
the very least they should be published if they are proprietary... 
especially if they are from a company found guilty of abusing 
monopoly status.
    The future of our world hangs in the balance. Not since 
Gutenberg introduced movable type has there been such an opportunity 
to make such cultural and information based leaps in society. The 
internet offers so much to so many... but a company with total 
control of information formats and with the low morals and 
ruthlessness demonstrated by Microsoft puts that at risk. If their 
monopoly is codified by a limp settlement what will happen? The PC 
market is pretty flat and rather expensive to

[[Page 26370]]

pursue... but the internet, if key parts could be subverted, could 
be a cash resource for them like no other. If you do not serve to 
protect the interest of the American people (and in this case really 
the whole world) where shall we turn? I implore you to stop the 
bully.
    Force them to open their file formats!
    Restrict their advances into other monopolies!
    Put some teeth in any review board formed!
    Take action to limit their demonstrated behaviors!
    Think about forcing them to make restitution to consumers. 
Actions must have consequences and we look to you to protect our 
interests.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Eric Laffoon
    Virtual Artisans
    Web development for E-Business
    http://virtualartisans.com



MTC-00017133

From: Brooke Callahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear that Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive 
practices.
    The only issue is what to do about it.
    1. If we are to correct Microsoft's practices we MUST open the 
market to the competition. Microsoft should not be allowed to 
require a license to sell their products. This allows them to take 
that license away from companies that choose to sell competing 
products, potentialy crippiling these vendors.
    2. Once a vendor has paid Microsoft for the OEM software to be 
installed on a computer it should be up to the vendor to add or 
subtract software from the default installation however they deem 
fit. This supposes that any changes to the default microsoft 
installation are made known to the customer that they might reverse 
them if they choose. Also, it allows the vendor to give their 
customers the best service possible-making sure everything 
works as it should and placing these applications where the customer 
might easily find them.
    3. To compensate for its crimes Microsoft should be submitted a 
full IRS audit for which it would be stripped of it's deductions 
during it's time of poor business practices. If Microsoft is allowed 
to use it's software to compensate for it's actions the Courts 
should set the price of the software.
    Example: Windows XP. Microsoft would say that donating this to a 
school is worth well over $200. But this high price is only accepted 
because of the very business practices we are trying to reverse! 
R&D costs should not be considered either, only the cost of 
printing the disk.
    thankyou,
    Brooke Callahan



MTC-00017134

From: Nathan Roach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is flawed
    *This message was transferred with a trial version of 
CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
    I am concerned that the proposed settlement does not 
sufficiently protect innovation from non-profit software developers. 
Robert Cringley's comment on the PBS website sums up my concern 
accurately: ``If this deal goes through as it is written, 
Microsoft will emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger 
than before.
    Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final 
Judgement specifically protect companies in 
commerce-organizations in business for profit. On the surface, 
that makes sense because Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic 
activities against ``competing'' commercial software 
vendors like Netscape, and other commercial vendors-computer 
vendors like Compaq, for example. The Department of Justice is used 
to working in this kind of economic world, and has done a fair job 
of crafting a remedy that will rein in Microsoft without causing 
undue harm to the rest of the commercial portion of the industry. 
But Microsoft's greatest single threat on the operating system front 
comes from Linux- a non-commercial product-and it faces 
a growing threat on the applications front from Open Source and 
freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don't even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...''
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.''
    Please take action to ensure that the final settlement is 
stronger and more effective than the current proposal.
    Nathan Roach
    San Antonio, Texas



MTC-00017135

From: Doug Simpkinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will try to keep this brief.
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft does not go 
far enough in curtailing the anti-competitive behavior of 
Microsoft's monopoly. Here are a few quick points, but in general 
the settlement must go farther.
    Microsoft's file formats for Office documents should be 
disclosed, but this is not required under the proposed settlement.
    Microsoft would still be allowed to discount Windows based on 
sales of other products, allowing them to extend their Windows 
monopoly into other product areas (e.g. PocketPC)
    Microsoft's licensing mechanism should be 
restricted-currently Microsoft uses licensing agreements to 
prohibit their software from being used on competing operating 
systems. Any software they sell should be usable on any compatible 
operating system.
    I truly hope that others who have more time are able to fill in 
the details a bit better, but if you need to contact me please feel 
free.
    Regards,
    Doug Simpkinson
    Software Engineer
    Sunnyvale, CA 94087



MTC-00017136

From: Brian Burrington
To: 
``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj. gov(060)microsoft.atr(a)usd...
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I wish to have you note my displeasure at the Microsoft vs. 
Department of Justice Settlement Agreement.
    As an I.T. professional for the past 8 or so years, I feel 
understand all issues surrounding this lawsuit and it's proposed 
settlement better than the average citizen.
    In my humble opinion the settlement is flawed because:
    1) it does not properly implement it's own proposed measures of 
forcing Microsoft to share in a fair and even manner APIs to 
competing vendors for it's middleware
    2) the phrase ``license on reasonable terms'' in 
relation to Microsoft's required licensing of it's network APIs is 
particularly vague
    3) various and sundry other detailed reasons that I'm certain 
you will recieve in other like-minded communications
    SUMMARY: I feel (as do many of my fellow I.T. friends and 
coworkers) that Microsoft products are indeed needed for the 
continued economic success of the United States. However, none of us 
feel that strict and specific restrictions on their corporate 
business practices, a strong requirement of Microsoft to share their 
network and application APIs, and ZERO loopholes (such as the 
``security and copy protections'' one) are necessary for 
the further growth and success of the I.T. industry.
    Microsoft's unconscionable behavior is inexcuseable and has hurt 
this industry severely; this state of affairs cannot be alowed to 
continue. In my humble opinion, this settlement agreement is only 
window dressing and will not solve any problems in the long term.
    Sincerly,
    Brian Burrington



MTC-00017137

From: Driz N
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is my comment with regard to the Microsoft Settlement, in 
accordance with the Tunney Act. I believe the current proposed 
settlement is a good solution. M.E.



MTC-00017138

From: Greg Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26371]]

    Dear Sir, This letter is to let you know of my opposition to the 
Microsoft Settlement of the anti-trust trial. I feel that the 
currently proposed settlement will do nothing to protect the 
consumer from the misuse and abuse of Microsoft's monopoly power.
    Nothing in the provisions have any ``teeth'' to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing to use its established monopoly in 
the Operating System market to leverage and obtain a monopoly in 
other markets. The technical comitee, while having investigative 
powers, does not have any enforcement powers except through a 
Judge-where Microsoft has proven itself willing and able to 
delay and appeal any final judgement for as long as possible until 
the product is already released to the public, competitors are 
bankrupt, and the damage is done. Unless the technical commitee has 
the power to enforce the provisions (without appeal or until an 
appeal overrides them)-including the ability to prevent the 
release of a Microsoft product I am afraid that they are only a 
paper tiger.
    There are also several other problems with the proposal relating 
to the Windows API, knowledge of which is -required- in 
order for a competitor to produce a product which competes with a 
Microsoft product (such as Internet Explorer and Office). While it 
requires that the APIs be publicized it allows Microsoft to either 
change the APIs just before shipping the product or to place such 
restrictions on the use of the publicised APIs that a competitor 
cannot use it without serious cost (for example having 2 seperate 
development teams) which would need to be reflected in the final 
price of their product.
    Microsoft's behavior since the anti-trust trial has not changed. 
And I totally reject the idea that the anti-trust trial is 
``hurting'' the economy. Or ``caused the dot-com 
crash'' (as stated by a representive from my own 
state-Washington). Microsoft itself is hurting the economy by 
preventing innovation and the creation of new ideas and products due 
to its secret APIs (which the provisions do not fully address), 
changing file formats which also the provisions fail to address, OEM 
License ``requirements'' (I do not call the agreements), 
the EULA, and fear that ``Microsoft will just steal the idea 
and then change their APIs so that my product will no longer 
work...'.
    What I think should happen?
    1) Require Microsoft to public *all* APIs and file formats in a 
product 6-9 months before its release -and- delay 
the release until that time has passed after the APIs have been 
changed.
    2) Prevent Microsoft from requiring ``per-seat'' 
licensing from enterprises (Corporations, Businesses, etc.....).
    3) Treat Microsoft as a ``essential utility'' much 
like the telephone company was and regulate it-or at least the 
portion of Microsoft which is a Monopoly (Windows and possible 
Office).
    4) Give the technical comittee the power to punish microsoft (by 
preventing the release of a product or by requiring documentation be 
publicised openly, or by changing the language of any license 
agreements).
    Hmm... In conclusion I feel that the conduct of Microsoft during 
the Anti-Trust trial (introducing bogus and fraudulant videos, 
lying, etc...) treated the court, and the US Justice system with 
contempt.
    I do not feel that the DOJ should come to an agreement just for 
agreement sake.
    That is all I have to say.
    Thank you for this opprotunity to
    I would urge the DOJ to review the Findings of Fact before 
signing off on this agreement and check of which if the findings the 
provisions fully address.
    Greg Johnson
    [email protected]



MTC-00017139

From: Sean Hafeez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very unhappy about the MS settlement. It does not go far 
enough to prevent MS from doing what it has done in the past. As a 
developer of applications for BeOS (which is no more), MS business 
practices hurt me directly. MS required that Windows be the only 
bootable OS on a PC. So companies that agreed to place the BeOS on 
their system were forced to hide that choice and make the end user 
jump thru hoops in order to be able to boot the BeOS. I feel that 
this help cause the down fall of Be, Inc. and hurt me financially. 
As an independent developer MS has hurt my ability to earn a living.
    Thanks,
    Sean Hafeez



MTC-00017140

From: Phil Greer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea.
    It is no better than the consent decree of 1995, and we all know 
how well that worked to curb Microsoft's anti competitive practices.
    A monopoly needs to be punished more.
    Phil Greer



MTC-00017141

From: S. Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to voice my dissatisfaction with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I feel that Microsoft will not be subject to enough 
restrictions on its monopoly, and the text of the settlement does 
not account for many of the technical details which Microsoft will 
leverage in order to, essentially, continue its rampant assimilation 
of competing technologies into its operating system, as well as grow 
its business unfairly into too many markets (internet news, access, 
home entertainment, etc).
    Sam Harrison
    Seattle WA
    Independent Software Author
    www.treyharrison.com



MTC-00017142

From: Francis A Bleecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I really do not understand why microsoft (msft) has gotten away 
with what it has done and then to subvert the government via bribes 
and to make everything ok. I have always had a problem with the way 
microsoft has done business all the way back to cdrom standards in 
the late 1980's. They spent 4 years trying to subvert the hardware/
software side of that fine media. Of course I also witnessed the 
compiler wars during that time with borland and the likes (borland 
who?).
    This is simply a email to voice my complaint about the company.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017143

From: David Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned about certain deficiencies in the Proposed Final 
Judgment in the Microsoft case.
    Specifically, it appears to me that the PFJ may not offer 
sufficient protection to development of middleware to allow 
Microsoft applications to interoperate with non-Microsoft operating 
systems, particularly Linux.
    The substance of my concern is spelled out in a document 
available on the Web at the following URL:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#abe
    The text below is a verbatim reproduction of the pertinent 
paragraph:
    The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in two 
ways:
    1. By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
    2. By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the 
use of non-Microsoft middleware.
    A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make sure 
that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft 
operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run application 
programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (?52) considered 
the possibility that competing operating systems could implement the 
Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for Windows 
as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is 
in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating system, which 
includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity 
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the 
information for the purpose of writing operating systems that 
interoperate with Windows programs.
    David H. Friedman
    [email protected]



MTC-00017144

From: Rob Riggs

[[Page 26372]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) by the 
Justice Department in the Microsoft case. It does not come close to 
addressing the harm caused to the marketplace by this monopoly. The 
most glaring problem with the settlement is that it only applies to 
Microsoft's Windows operating system, and then goes on to so 
narrowly define ``Windows'' as to exempt the majority of 
Microsoft's operating systems based on Windows APIs. There is 
absolutely no need to define it narrowly at all. All of Microsoft's 
potential operating systems should be covered under any settlement 
with the DOJ.
    Robert Riggs
    Erie, Colorado



MTC-00017145

From: John Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I am utterly and completely opposed to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft Anti-Trust Issue. My opposition is based upon such 
a large number of loop holes and non binding statements that I 
simply do not have the time to list them all at this juncture. If 
for any reason you do wish to hear a list of my problems with the 
settlement feel free to ask and I will respond when I have time to 
quote almost every sentence in the ``non-settlement'' to 
you.
    Thank you for your time.
    John Hall
    Programmer
    University of Alaska
    910 Yukon Drive
    Fairbanks, AK 99775
    (907) 474-6264
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00017146

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Seamus Sullivan



MTC-00017147

From: Bryce Schober
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider my comments with regard to the Proposal of Final 
Judgement for the Tunney Act proceedings in this case. In summary, I 
declare that the PFJ is insufficient, both to ensure Microsoft's 
compliance with Antitrust laws, and to remedy the effects of their 
breaking of said laws. This insufficiency is caused my many factors, 
and my viewpoint is very accurately reflected by Dan Kegel's essay, 
opinions, and open letter at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html. I urge you to seriously consider his viewpoint, which 
I, an informed US citizen, share.
    Sincerely,
    Bryce Schober



MTC-00017148

From: Steve Speck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a citizen of the United States of America and the state of 
Florida. I have read the proposed settlement and do not believe it 
will do anything to prevent Microsoft from continuing to use it's 
monopoly power in operating systems to extent monopoly into other 
areas.
    Below are few of the many problems I find with the settlement. I 
am a programmer by profession and the definition of API is much too 
narrow, allowing many critical API's to remain proprietary. 
Microsoft has in the past and continues to manipulate such APIs to 
cause incompatibilities between Windows and non-Microsoft 
application programs when Microsoft decides to take over a 
particular application category. The agreement defines 
``Windows'' too narrowly, the definition should include 
all operating systems based on the Windows API, such as Windows CE 
and the X-Box operating system.
    Microsoft will still be able to craft license agreements that 
prevent Windows software from running on other operating systems. 
Microsoft will continue it's practice of requiring enterpirse 
customers to pay a license fee for each computer capable of running 
Windows, whether or not it actually does so. Such contracts with 
OEMs were prohibited as unfair in the 1994 settlement between 
Microsoft and the United States of America, and they are still 
unfair no matter who the customer.
    Stephen Speck



MTC-00017149

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello; I should like to express my objection to the current 
Microsoft settlement. Microsoft has a history of skirting the very 
edge of legality whenever it is to their advantage; as such, any 
settlement which does not unambiguously restrain their ability to 
illegally use their monopoly is worse than useless, as it gives the 
impression of restraint without actually doing so.
    In particular, as long as Microsoft has access to sections of 
the Windows APIs that are not available to the general developer, it 
will be able to develop applications the latter will not be able to 
match.
    Here, characteristically, there is the appearance of competition 
without its real dangers to Microsoft. Thank-you for your time, and 
consideration of our comments, as well as the cognizance that 
Microsoft are bankrolling an high-pressure ``astroturf'' 
(as in ``fake grass-roots'') campaign to see the 
settlement stay as written.
    -Michael Turyn.



MTC-00017150

From: Jeff Melby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my disappointment at the Justice 
Department's apparent attempt to favor business interests over the 
good of the people. The proposed Microsoft Settlement does very 
little to protect consumers and should be rejected. It is clear that 
the change in leadership at the Justice Department brought special 
business interests to the forefront at the sake of consumer 
protection.
    Jeff Melby



MTC-00017151

From: Joe Cotellese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concerned:
    I am writing this e-mail to express my disgust at the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    Specifically with regard to documenting APIs and file formats. 
As a software developer I have spent many hours trying to determine 
how Microsoft APIs function. In many cases, functionality that is 
built into the operating system and used by Microsoft applications 
is either documented poorly or completely undocumented. The effect 
of this is it give Microsoft application developers an unfair 
advantage over ISVs. A possible remedy would be to either split the 
company into application and operating system units or release the 
source code to the APIs. This would level the playing field for 
internal Microsoft developers and ISVs who are competing with them.
    Regards,
    Joe Cotellese



MTC-00017152

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

[[Page 26373]]

Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    AFter reading (and rereading) the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case, I must say that I am appalled. The 
proposed settlement is inadequate, unenforceable, filled with 
loopholes, and would have an insignificant effect on bringing these 
convicted monopolists to justice. If we as a society treated all 
criminals in the same manner in which we are treating Microsoft, 
then we would have no need for prisons. In short, please add my 
voice to the mass of other voices firmly against this settlement.
    Thank you for your time
    Darren C. Scott
    U.S. Citizen and Registered Voter.



MTC-00017153

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    I agree with many of the reasons Dan Kegel and others have 
stated as to why the proposed settlement in this case is 
unacceptable to me as a consumer and end user of computer software. 
I take this time to write you about my particular concerns regarding 
this case.
    I feel the monopoly Microsoft currently holds has hurt not only 
the country but the entire world with regard to the over all 
security and useability of the Internet. The homogeneity of 
Microsoft software has lead to larger numbers of virus outbreaks and 
``hacking'' which cost billions of dollars to fix and 
recover from. The fix should be something that stops Microsoft from 
creating an environment which prohibits other vendors from entering 
the market. If Ford had prevented other manufacturers from entering 
the automobile market we could all be driving in Pintos and 
Explorers on bad tires!
    I have also read that part of what Microsoft proposes is to give 
away its software to schools around the country. This is not a move 
to make restitution as much as to get more people using their 
product over the small number of competitors who might be trying to 
make inroads to the market. I see this as being no different than a 
drug dealer that gives away the first ``hit'' for free 
just to further their own business. I feel a better solution would 
be to make Microsoft pay for copies of competitor products and give 
them away to the schools.
    I truly wish to see Microsoft punished properly for their 
crimes. I fear that they will simply use the money gained from these 
illegal activities to buy off the right people in our government. 
Please prove me wrong by making the penalties stiff and enforceable.
    Thank you,
    David Henning
    Principal Information Security Engineer
    CACI formerly DSIC-NSG www.dsic-nsg.com
    301-306-2680 x1110



MTC-00017154

From: Ray Clouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement that the DOJ and Microsoft have reached is not 
acceptable to me as a United States citizen. It will not properly 
punish Microsoft for the damage it has done to the operating system 
and browser markets.
    Ray Clouse
    Cypress, CA USA
    Ray.Clouse AT boeing.com
    clouse AT rayclouse.org



MTC-00017155

From: Sashikanth Chandrasekaran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The microsoft settlement is a bad idea. It will only give them a 
bigger monopoly. They must pay for breaking the law, instead the 
settlement is a reward for them.
    Please reconsider.
    -sashi.



MTC-00017156

From: Adele.Moore
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. I work in the advertising industry 
and do not agree with the Proposed Final Judgement simply because it 
does not provide ample protection for competitors of the Microsoft 
giant. Anyone that uses a computer on a regular basis is hard 
pressed to find alternatives to Microsoft software and services. The 
company is ubiquitous and far-reaching. The Proposed final judgement 
must do more to limit Microsoft's ability to crush competition and 
protect America's free market.
    Adele C. Moore
    P.O. Box 2343
    Alameda, CA 94501
    (510) 749-3687



MTC-00017157

From: Allan Metzler
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Allan Metzler



MTC-00017158

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment. I believe 
that, as written, it will not solve the problems it is intended to 
solve. The two largest issues are these:
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft.
    Please do not allow this settlement to proceed with these 
problems; I believe they will materially impact the security of the 
US computer networks.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Sniffen, Citizen of the United States
    61 Medford St.
    Medford, MA 02155
    Brian Sniffen
    Security Engineer day:
    Akamai Technologies
    [email protected]
    (617) 613-2642 cel: (617) 721-0927
    eve: (781) 874-0699 pi: (314) 159-2654



MTC-00017159

From: mbelnap@proxy. dmz.orem.verio.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that I must comment on the proposed final judgement 
(pfj). I feel that there are a tremendous number of flaws with this 
settlement, but I will limit this complaint to the lack of 
enforcement capability. I feel that with Microsoft's history of 
repeatedly and openly defying any and all agreements it makes with 
the DOJ, it should be essential that in any agreement. The 
provisions in the pfj are incredibly toothless.
    For this as well as numerous other reasons, I would ask that the 
pfj be rejected, and the doj should properly craft a settlement that 
does more to EFFECTIVELY remedy the harms inflected by microsoft in 
the past and prevent future abuses that are inevitably going to 
happen.
    Mark Belnap
    Pleasant Grove UT



MTC-00017160

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree with the DOJ's proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
Among myriad reasons, the two most important reasons to

[[Page 26374]]

push for a more stringent settlement and even punishment of 
Microsoft are:
    * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    * The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    and
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    * Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    I and others in the computer community have watched Microsoft 
crush innovative new companies, such as Netscape and WordPerfect, 
and see the government as faltering in its duty to protect consumers 
from the Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft was found guilty. Please take 
advantage of a situation that will never come around again and make 
Microsoft behave and play fair!
    Cheers,
    Bryan M. Davis



MTC-00017161

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this case.
    Microsoft has the capability to terminate any other competing 
company in the PC industry by integrating features into their own 
operating system. It is possible that, if Microsoft integrated not 
just the web browser, but a photo editor, a drawing package, the 
word processor and office suite, and so on, that a whole handful of 
large software companies that currently provide these tools would 
cease to exist overnight. This has been and continues to be the 
policy of Microsoft (i.e. Netscape and/or Java). Much of this has 
come to light in the trial.
    The resolution seems to be a good first step. However, in five 
years, the entire enforcement expires. Microsoft has enough cash 
that it can wait five years and develop strategies in the background 
during that time. When this judgement expires, the same behavior 
will reappear, in an even more vigorous and prepared form. I am 
sorely disappointed in the limited term of this judgement.
    Please consider extending the duration of enforcement for this 
judgement.
    Sincerely,
    Sam W. Bowman
    Name: Sam Bowman, Engineer at Large
    Company: Medtronic Minimed, Northridge, CA
    Phone: 818-576-4954
    E-mail: Sam Bowman 



MTC-00017162

From: shaun arral
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RESTORE some competition in the computer field. If microsoft 
shared and played nice with other vendors, OS's, Apps, Languages, 
Protocols, Standards the computing industry would be better for all, 
not just one. And to make it worse this ONE has the worst OS, Apps 
out there. THEY HAVE NO RELIABILITY in their software. So you always 
have to upgrade...what a joke. PLEASE punish Microsoft and help 
resotore competition to the computer industry and watch technology, 
innovation really explode !!!
    What if it was a secret held by the biggest electric company 
which wire is ``hot''...????
    What if there was a standard (use red), but the big company said 
``white w/red stripe also'' but didn't tell others. I 
don't know if this example is true but it works. See what Microsoft 
does?
    Shaun



MTC-00017163

From: Kevin M. Lowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a developer for Microsoft's technologies, servers, and client 
systems, I have reviewed with interest the proposed settlement. I 
understand that there have been a number of complaints, and wished 
to note that I find very little to be wrong with the settlement as 
proposed. In fact, its terms may actually damage developers by being 
too harsh (for example, III.C.3 allows for alternate interfaces of 
``similar size and shape'' on Middleware; interface 
continuity is something very much relied on by developers,) or 
unnecessarily delaying Microsoft from fulfilling obligations related 
to the maintenance of their software (III.D, tying the release of a 
Service Pack-an endeavor regularly scheduled at a six-month 
interval and coming due in mid-April to an effort to prepare 
internal documentation for external distribution that could 
conceivably delay the release of the Service Pack, including vital 
security fixes, by several months.)
    I also disagree with the concept of allowing users to remove 
components of the operating system. Again, developers take for 
granted that certain portions of the system will be available, with 
their own unique API's. For example, the playback of digital media 
through an HTML document is accomplished using an ActiveX control (a 
link to a small program on a user's hard drive.) If said control is 
not in place, or if an OEM-approved replacement does not support 
Microsoft's API completely, such functionality might not work. Such 
components would have to be added to the redistributable package, 
increasing install package sizes in a time where high-speed internet 
is still disappointingly unavailable in many areas and decreasing 
the amount of available space on physical install media. 
Alternately, developers would have to detect and code for several 
major API's, severely adding to development time.
    However, these complaints are insufficient for me to voice 
disapproval for the settlement, and as such I wish to voice my 
approval in contrast to the dissenting comments also received.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin M. Lowe



MTC-00017164

From: Smith, Nathan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I disagree with the proposed settlement because I do not believe 
that it adequately addresses future behavior, including licensing 
and fair disclosure of interoperability requirements. Furthermore, 
it explicitly attempts to exclude the open source software markets 
from having access to the required information.
    Sincerely,
    Nathan Smith
    703.588.0069



MTC-00017165

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in to contribute my opinion, as a U.S. Citizen and 
taxpayer regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    In short: this thing stinks to high heaven. It does absolutely 
NOTHING to repair the results of Microsoft's years of flagrant 
antitrust abuses, and does very little to prevent them from using 
the advantages they have gained from those abuses in the future. It 
also does almost nothing to stop Microsoft from moving into other 
fields and doing the same thing.
    Microsoft has moved in a predatory manner with its operating 
system business, edging competitors out of the way by adding its own 
proprietary products into the operating system. The obvious case 
involves the conflict between Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser 
and Netscape's, but there are others. We have witnessed the flap 
over Windows XP, which was to include CD burning software and does 
include products like Microsoft's MSN Messenger, a direct competitor 
with AOL's Instant Messenger, Yahoo's Yahoo Messenger, and other 
messaging products. We have also seen Microsoft using the power it 
holds on the operating system to nudge users towards the Hotmail 
service and using Hotmail, one of the largest email services, 
forcing Hotmail users to sign up for the ``Passport'' 
service. Microsoft has also used its control of the operating system 
to force OEM vendors to offer Microsoft's other products like 
Microsoft Office, removing competitors like IBM's Lotus suite and 
WordPerfect from the forefront. Microsoft is also predatory in their 
pricing: by holding so much of the market, Microsoft is able to 
leverage this and force users to ``upgrade'' to the next 
OS sooner than normal, as well as at a much higher cost than a 
competitive market would provide. ``Upgrade'' packs for 
the home user edition of Windows XP come at $99; the price is more 
than double that for a full installation disk not requiring the 
purchase of an older Microsoft OS. This is the only pricing scheme 
where the price of the upgrade is on the same level as the original 
purchase.
    To actually solve the problems Microsoft's violations of 
antitrust law have caused, there

[[Page 26375]]

need to be heavy restrictions on Microsoft's conduct regarding the 
operating system, and a stop to the predatory restrictions on OEM 
publishing that bundle MS Office and other programs together. There 
need to be provisions to aid companies like Sun and Netscape, who 
have been harmed by Microsoft's illegal exploitation of its 
operating system monopoly, in regaining their lost market share to 
provide a truly competitive market.
    The proposed settlement, by contrast, is the equivalent of 
sending a three-year-old to sit in the corner for 10 minutes before 
he goes right back to drawing on the walls. He doesn't learn a 
thing, and all you'll teach Microsoft is that it can get away with 
breaking the law. Don't let it happen.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Ahlf
    4361 Wheeler QT333
    Houston, TX 77004



MTC-00017166

From: Matthew Carpenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Response to the proposed Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern-
    Hello, my name is Matthew Carpenter and I am from Grand Rapids, 
Michigan. As one who is intimately familiar with computers and 
related technology, I would like to express my concern about the 
proposed settlement in the US vs. Microsoft case. I will spare you 
the ``techno-jargon'' which I'm sure you have most likely 
recieved already. Basically, the way I read it, the settlement does 
not fulfill the requirements of ``penalty'' and indeed 
benefits the software monopolist.
    Microsoft has been convicted of maintaining a monopoly through 
illegal and unfair means. Remedies need to address the illegal 
behaviors, their affects, and overall demand a penalty which at the 
very least will dissuade Microsoft and others from similar activity 
in the future. Please don't allow Microsoft to convince you that it 
is in the best interest of the public to let them off easy. They 
have contributed a lot to the furthering of the computer industry... 
but the cost has been great as well, not only for their competitors, 
but for the public in general. The free-market system, for all its 
weaknesses, is still the best thing for America. Microsoft would, in 
my experience, say that their contributions are great and the cost 
is little, but by making our choices for us, they don't allow us the 
chance to prove otherwise.
    In my opinion, remedies must address the following things to 
attempt restitution for the damages, or at least to allow the damage 
to be healed: *
    Microsoft's underlying technologies should to be made available 
to everyone openly. If the ``standards'' which Microsoft 
touts (eg. the format for .doc, .xls, .ppt files, etc...) are to 
continue, making them ``open standards'' in which all 
parties can participate openly should allow for a little competition 
to build. Currently products which attempt this do a poor job due to 
flaws in ``reverse-engineering''. This should be the case 
going forward for old and new file-formats and other such for at 
minimum of 5 years. Potentially, their file-formats would be a good 
thing to open to a standards body like ISO.
    * Microsoft's ``innovations'' should be kept under 
watch, to avoid their standard behavior of ``extending'' 
open-standards, which only breaks the standard. If they are to 
``extend'' open-standards, they should be made to do so 
with the consent of a standards body which could limit changes 
between official standards timeframes, to promote interoperability.
    * Microsoft's Application Programming Interfaces(API's) should 
be made available completely, not in part as has been the case, to 
all partners and developers. This is the goal which splitting the 
company was to address. The ``internal API's'' currently 
include much better ways of solving a problem than the API's made 
available to many companies, putting everyone else at a disadvantage 
and allowing Microsoft Desktop and Server technologies an unfair 
advantage over technologies developed by anyone else.
    * Microsoft should be made to pay the costs for all of the above 
to be implemented, and any administrative fees for such.
    To sum up the situation, Microsoft is the playground bully of 
the Computer Industry. They have already caused a great deal of 
damage to the industry, costing even more than they have 
contributed, in my opinion.
    The resolution needs to attempt to make them ``play nicely 
with the other children'' so-to-speak, while encouraging them 
and any future potential monopolists to avoid incurring the ultimate 
damage to the American people (and the world over): using their 
monopoly to take away the possibility of our having other choices.
    Obviously this is a difficult decision as it does not seem like 
a normal thing to force a company to open up its ``intellectual 
property.'' But this is not a normal situation. The company in 
question is a monopoly whose ``intellectual property'' has 
become a commodity to information systems. A monopoly who has proven 
itself capable of abusing its monopoly in order to maintain it. A 
monopoly who through doing so has deprived us of countless 
technologies which may have made our lives better. A monopoly who 
would have us only have one choice: a choice proven to have more 
security and stability problems than any systems in the past. A 
monopoly who in doing so, artificially enlarged the number of 
products which require their software, because there are no other 
viable choices. Even if it may appear that there are beginning to be 
other viable options now that the lawsuit has stayed some of the 
more blatant illegal activities, the penalty should be made with 
regards to the circumstances at the beginning of the lawsuit.
    Please reconsider allowing the proposed settlement to go 
forward. Please consider what is best for the public. Encouraging 
competition in a free market is what's best. Microsoft has shown 
that they don't have to consider what's best for us and that is why 
we are here now.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Carpenter
    Enterprise Information Systems
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    616.813.5103
    231.834.9228



MTC-00017167

From: Robert Baruch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hash: SHA1
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    Under the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment and to express my 
concern and dissatisfaction about the Proposed Final Judgement 
(``PFJ''). Among other concerns, I have a few primary 
concerns.
    1. I am dissatisfied about the PFJ's definition of 
``API'' (Definition A). The PFJ defines an API to mean an 
interface between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows. I do 
not understand why this definition is limited to middleware 
published by Microsoft. Reducing Microsoft's monopoly would be 
better implemented by requiring Microsoft to document, for no fee, 
all of its API's, including undocumented API's, between Microsoft 
Windows and any other piece of software.
    Even the definition of ``middleware'' (Definition J) 
is unsatisfactory, due to its loopholes, and I would prefer to keep 
the original definition as set forth in the Findings of Fact, 
paragraph 28.
    2. I am dissatisfied with the way the PFJ allows Microsoft to 
erect competitive barriers through the use of patents. Not to get 
into a debate on the validity of intellectual property patents, but 
I feel that allowing Microsoft to set the licensing fee for a 
Microsoft patent to even one dollar per developer erects a barrier 
to their use by non-Microsoft developers to develop software that 
will work with either Microsoft Windows or other software that works 
with Microsoft Windows (e.g. software developed by existing 
licensees).
    API's, protocols, and file formats are the methods one piece of 
software uses to communicate with another piece of software. By 
allowing these methods to be patented at all chills entry, but even 
given an existing patent, any licensing agreement short of royalty-
free chills entry as well. Microsoft cannot be allowed to select the 
license terms of their patents which apply to API's, protocols, and 
file formats. And those license terms must be royalty-free.
    3. I am dissatisfied with the way the PFJ treats API's as the 
only method of communications between one piece of software and 
another. I would prefer that any mechanism of communications be 
included, including protocols (such as .NET and SMB) and file 
formats (such as Microsoft Word's .doc and Microsoft Excel's .xls). 
Allowing these mechanisms to remain undocumented sharply increases 
the entry barrier to non-Microsoft developers and to developers who 
are not Microsoft licensees.

[[Page 26376]]

    Thank you for your time and effort in helping to prevent a 
continuation of Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    Yours,
    Robert Baruch
    76 Collins Lane
    Rising Sun, MD 21911



MTC-00017168

From: elmlish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Illegal Behavior: Proven. Punishment 
Urges More Illegal Behavior?
    Dear Justice Department,
    I am truly frightened by the situation highlighted by the 
Microsoft Antitrust Trial. I have read the many variations of 
settlements that have been published and have been disturbed by the 
lack of force inherent in the proposed remedies. Most do nothing 
that would conceivably deter Microsoft from continuing it's Proven 
Illegal anti-competitive practices and furthermore, would do next to 
nothing that would reasonably punish them for their illegal actions 
nor would it do anything to help rectify the situation (i.e. make 
the computing market a more competitive one).
    My impression is that any settlement that Microsoft agrees to 
would be one that does the minimum amount of damage to their 
business model. My Question to you is this: would you try to come to 
an agreement with a murderer about his proposed sentence after being 
proven guilty? Would you truly let the Criminal have a say in their 
punishment? It strikes me as a Parent asking their child what sort 
of punishment they should have for doing something bad. The Child 
will very often opt for a punishment such as letting them watch more 
tv or some other action they like. It's silly.
    Please do your best to be just and fair. If a corporation can be 
considered to possess the rights of a natural person then they 
should be considered burdened with the same responsibilities. 
Illegal actions should lead to sanctions aimed at first stopping the 
illegal behavior and then to a rectification of the situation. 
Efforts should not be wasted on appeasing the ``wounded'' 
transgressor. Please help me have faith in our government. Please do 
your job to the best of your abilities. I know that your position is 
a difficult one, but the fate of all of us, in some part, is in your 
hands.
    Your's in seeking justice and fairness,
    Israel C. Evans.



MTC-00017169

From: Coy Thorp
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the terms of this settlement, and do not feel that 
it is comprehensive enough. Microsoft has created a barrier for 
other companies to enter into the desktop/intel PC market, and this 
PFJ does nothing to prevent this.
    Coy T. Thorp
    Network Systems Administrator
    MDL Information Systems, Inc.
    14600 Catalina St.
    San Leandro, CA 94577
    800.955.0051 x1190
    [email protected]



MTC-00017170

From: stephan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to state my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust trial. The finding of fact which 
confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict measures 
which address not only the practices they have engaged in in the 
past, but which also prevent them from engaging in other 
monopolistic practices in the future. The vast majority of the 
provisions within the settlement only formalize the status quo. Of 
the remaining provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft 
from abusing its current monopoly position in the operating system 
market. This is especially important in view of the seriousness of 
Microsoft's past transgressions.
    Most important, there are no provisions that correct or redress 
their previous monopoly abuses. The proposed settlement only 
attempts to prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. This, in 
my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a person or 
organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts 
and then receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that 
they cannot commit those acts again, they have still benefited from 
their illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of 
their abuses and not for the American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Stephan M Reed
    152A Ximeno
    Long Beach CA, 90803



MTC-00017171

From: Julia Christianson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to those who are very concerned 
about the terms of the Proposed Final Judgement in the Microsoft 
case. I agree with those who believe that the Proposed Final 
Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the emergence of 
competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is therefore not 
in the public interest. It should not be adopted without substantial 
revision to address these problems.
    There are many areas of concern, but my greatest concern is that 
no part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any information 
about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft file formats 
form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see ``Findings 
of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39).
    I am also concerned that under the terms of the PFJ Microsoft 
may still impose penalties on OEMS (large or small) which choose to 
provide computers loaded with a competing operating system in 
addition to, or in place of, Windows.
    I am in charge of office automation for a mid-sized non-profit 
human services organization in Northern Virginia. In the face of 
continuing funding cuts we can simply no longer afford to run 
Microsoft software, and we have found open source a very reasonable 
alternative for our server applications. However Microsoft's refusal 
to make public their file formats and APIs is keeping us from making 
the switch to open source on the desktop. Given Microsoft's long 
history of questionable business practices, the only hope for us in 
the long term is for the Justice Department to insist upon a full 
set of remedies for the numerous violations of the laws of the 
United States identified in the Findings of Fact.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Julia Christianson
    ICON Community Services, Inc.
    110 N. Royal St., Suite 508
    Alexandria, VA 22314
    [email protected]



MTC-00017172

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    One comment,
    Bigger companies that have strong positions like Microsoft try 
to influence surronding area and make it more suitable for company 
and it's product.
    One act for this is to get people to get used something. If you 
have been playing aroung with Windows from the kid it is much harder 
to jump to something else. So if Microsoft is allowed to 
``compensate'' it's restrictions to other companies by 
giving some of it's product as a ``free'' it is not a any 
punishment.
    Of course Microsoft is claiming that it will loose some money 
because the those universites/schools don't buy Microsoft's 
products.
    That is partly true, if you check only small picture, but if you 
check what Microsoft is doing at the same time volantary on console 
markets. They are selling consoles with loss, just to be able to 
sell games later with good profit. Everything that company does 
cannot make profit but it can still be a part of the plan.
    Microsoft is also already started to move it's product to 
centraliced system. (e.g. MS Passport and yearly billing.)
    If they get more companies (including schools and universities) 
to use their product then those will get guarented bills from this 
forward and settlemet moneys will end on some time and then 
microsoft has managed to arrange cash cows.
    If they will get people to use their system now then they will 
also get those people get used to it and to left their information 
to there.
    So actually they will just create future income. So I see that 
court cannot agree any settlement that would support strategic goals 
of Microsoft.

[[Page 26377]]

    Real punishment would be to put Microsoft to pay some other 
operating system installation to schools & universities
    (But actually it could be favoring something so better to be 
just and not to favor to support any specific company)
    Regards,
    JP



MTC-00017173

From: Trail Potter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's new subscription plan is flagrantly anticompetitive 
by preventing companies from using competing products. When the CIO 
signs up for Microsoft, the agreement becomes exclusive.
    This is the very definition of Monopoly.
    To allow this to continue is a slap in the face to the rule of 
law.
    Trail Potter
    Field Manager
    Smartdentalbenefits.com
    [email protected]
    323-822-1900 mobile
    PO Box 69248
    Los Angeles, CA 90069



MTC-00017174

From: Don Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust
    settlement just for settlement's sake.
    A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Don Rogers
    [email protected]



MTC-00017175

From: David Aronchick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:54pm
Subject: Support for the MS decision
    I realize that you're probably getting an enormous amount of 
spam regarding the settlement with MS. I for one just want to show 
my support for a lighter sentence. I'm an entreprenuer myself, and I 
fail to see the justification for a harsher penalty.
    Point 1) MS has a monopoly in the operating system market. No 
argument there.
    Point 2) MS did include an internet browser with their operating 
system. But they never charged for it, they never released it as a 
separate download. It was an augmentation to the OS, not a bundling.
    Point 3) Open sourcing or forcing a stripped down version of 
Windows offers no substantial benefit to the competitive 
marketplace. Yahoo currently releases a messenger which is small to 
download, changes all the settings to adjust to yahoo's sites, and 
allows yahoo fully competitive offerings.
    MS has not moved to prevent this or change yahoo's offering in 
any way. I think this is a prime example of a fully competitive 
marketplace.
    In summary, please don't listen to all the nay sayers. The 
important point is that with the observation body in place, the 
settlement as it currently stands will be more than enough.



MTC-00017176

From: Kevin Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing a follow-up letter to my previous submission to 
indicate my support for and agreement with the Dan Kegel, et al, 
joint ``Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement''. As 
of 2/23/2002, the letter is available on the World-Wide Web at 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html and it will be submitted to 
the Department of Justice.
    Please read and consider that letter and its large number of co-
signers.
    Thank you
    Kevin Butler
    Software Architect
    Campus Pipeline, Inc.
    1073 S 2230 E
    Spanish Fork, UT 84660



MTC-00017178

From: Jim Straus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello-
    I am against the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The terms 
are too loosely defined, the remedies if the settlement is not 
followed are ineffective, and the settlement does not restore 
competition in the market place. I do not believe this settlement is 
in the public interest.
    Thank you
    Jim Straus
    Austin, TX



MTC-00017179

From: Paul Koenigsberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a web programmer, I am opposed to the settlement in its 
proposed form, the primary reason being its wording that amounts to 
Microsoft's complete discretion over which entities can access their 
Application Programming Interfaces (``APIs''). Such 
discretion effectively allows Microsoft to control which 
technologies can interact with its products, further strengthening 
their leverage in current and future markets.
    I would also warn that this settlement, if allowed to proceed, 
will have damaging consequences in the long run for Microsoft and 
the U.S. technology sector itself. Governments, businesses, and 
technologists in foreign countries are watching this case with a 
keen interest. What they see is Microsoft's political coming-of-age, 
via the Bush administration, via their soft money contributions, and 
the leniency of the settlement. Microsoft can be perceived as having 
a new, close relationship w/ the U.S. government and U.S. national 
interests. As a consequence, and against the backdrop of a security-
conscious world, foreign governments and businesses will seek non-
U.S., non-Microsoft technology solutions for their critical and 
widely deployed applications in the name of security, as some are 
doing already. Domestically, companies and individuals who are 
privacy-conscious will no doubt step up their efforts to find 
alternative software solutions to Microsoft as well.
    Microsoft is already in trouble with their small to medium-sized 
business customers in regards to their new price-gouging software 
licensing, costing 25 to 30% more annually in most cases. Please 
don't let them shoot themselves in the other foot with a settlement 
that rewards them for anti-competitive behavior and sends a message 
to the world that Microsoft is in bed with the U.S. government.
    Cordially,
    Paul Koenigsberg
    335 West 19th St. #C12
    New York, N.Y. 10011
    email: [email protected] 




MTC-00017180

From: Robert Lucas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    From what I have heard of the Microsoft settlement I do not feel 
it will prevent future abuses of monopoly power that Microsoft has 
been conducting, nor do anything to even slightly make up for the 
past transgressions.
    The idea of having Microsoft give out free copies of Windows to 
schools seems noble at first, but is about as ludicrous as punishing 
a drug dealer by having him give out cocaine to school children for 
free. Further spreading Windows as it is currently designed will 
only foster addiction as the company has a unabashed reputation for 
creating products that quickly become obsolete and require expensive 
upgrades (try typing ``Hello Mom'' in one of the later 
versions of Microsoft Office and opening it up with even a year old

[[Page 26378]]

copy!) Furthermore, unlike tangible assets, the giving away of 
``intellectual property'' like Windows in bulk is 
virtually costless to Microsoft and is not a suitable punishment.
    Windows currently has a monopoly on the desktop and any solution 
to restore competition will take years. However the only way that 
this competition could even start would be for companies and 
individuals to at the very least understand how to work with Windows 
machines. By this I mean that the APIs and protocols used to network 
various Windows machines must be made public knowledge FOR EVERYONE. 
Furthermore, resellers and others should have the right to modify 
purchased copies of Windows to better suit their needs and their 
costumers needs. The monopoly power of Microsoft allows them to 
implement closed systems that impair innovation and are even 
probably illegal to try to reverse engineer out these days. The 
Internet works primarily using the TCP/IP protocol, if this protocol 
were protected the same way the protocols Windows uses to attach to 
something as simple as a printer the Internet would never have 
become what it is today.
    Microsoft continues to try to abuse their monopoly stance by 
squashing competing companies like Netscape and then redirecting 
every mis-typed web page address to their home portal. They add 
hooks to many of their media programs that encourage you to sign up 
for their Passport system with deceptive messages that make it sound 
like these two things are somehow related. They create new 
encryption protocols for the honorable goal of digital security, 
then ensure that software for these protocols only works under 
Windows rendering any other alternative operating system useless.
    As I see it, the only way to stop Microsoft from abusing their 
power is to stop them from oppressive licensing schemes for 
resellers and to stop making software and protocols that only work 
under Windows. I'm not sure how I would punish them for their past 
deeds, but I think that any punishment should be designed to help 
those companies and individuals wronged by Microsoft's actions to 
succeed in creating competition against the company. I also strongly 
favor the idea of the creation of some sort of oversight committee 
to help ensure Microsoft starts acting responsibly.
    Sincerely,
    Robert
    Department of Molecular Biology & Biochemistry 
(-bs
    University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697-3900
    Phone: (949) 824-1933, FAX (949) 824-1954
    Email [email protected]
    http://www.ags.uci.edu/rlucas



MTC-00017181

From: Dan B. Mann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree with the settlement terms.
    Dan Mann



MTC-00017182

From: Mike Moose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    I am against the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I do not 
think the settlement does enough to make sure that Microsoft raises 
no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft operating systems.
    Furthermore it is entirely unbelievable that the government 
would accept the solution proposed by Microsoft, namely that it be 
able to extend its monopoly by distributing free copies of its 
softward to the public school systems.
    Mike Moose
    www.glaserworks.com
    architecture & urban design



MTC-00017183

From: Benjamin Cressey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is 
woefully misguided and will do nothing to curb Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices.
    Benjamin Cressey
    Systems Architect



MTC-00017184

From: Ross J. Reedstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a research scientist in the computer and Information 
Technology Institute at Rice University, in Houston, TX. I have been 
doing research and development in the field of information 
technology for over 5 years. I find the Proposed Final Judgment 
(PFJ) to be not in the public interest, for many reasons. One 
principle objection I have is the usage limitations placed on the 
information that Microsoft Corp. (MSC) is being required to release 
by section II.D of the PFJ, to wit:
    ``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product,''
    This restriction serves to enhance, rather than remove, the 
monopoly MSC holds in on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, as 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It excludes a valid mechanism by 
which the Court could reduce MSCs monopoly: encouragement and 
support of ISVs and others to develop software that allows 
applications designed to run on the Windows family of operating 
systems to run on top of other operating systems, thereby directly 
competing with MSC in the area they hold an illegal monopoly. Such 
products have -not- been written by commercial ISVs, 
however, non-commercial efforts to develop such software have 
started, with great difficulty, discovering the secret parts of the 
Windows APIs by trial and error. One such project is WINE, designed 
to allow Windows applications, even MSCs own applications, to run on 
Linux and other Unix-like operating systems on Intel-compatible 
hardware. This is only one example of how the PFJ has been limited 
and restricted to the benefit of MSC. The finding of law is clear: 
the Court of Appeals affirmed it-MSC is an unlawful 
monopolist. Yet, the PFJ has no effective enforcement mechanisms, 
even though the violator (MSC) has shown a history of ignoring and 
blatantly violating court judgments. The restrictions that 
-do- exist in the PFJ are so weak, with unusual, narrow 
definitions of common terms of art, such as ``API'' or 
``Middleware'', such as to gut what little power they 
might have had.
    In short, I agree with the State Attorneys General who found 
this settlement completely unacceptable-it does nothing 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'' 
(Court of Appeals ruling, Section V.D.) As a citizen of this 
country, I am disheartened that the government department whose 
purpose is to enforce the law of the land, whose very name is 
composed of one of the great moral principles our country is founded 
on, Justice, would offer such a complete capitulation to 
lawbreakers, in the name of expediency. In this time when our nation 
and its principles are under attack by forces who seek to deny us 
our fundamental freedoms, it is imperative that we stand firm, and 
support the principle of rule of law, in both letter and spirit. 
Even if the proposed final judgment fulfilled the letter of the law, 
which I do not believe it does, it clearly violates the spirit.
    Ross J. Reedstrom
    Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D.
    Executive Director
    Gulf Coast Consortium for Bioinformatics
    Rice University MS-39
    Houston, TX 77005
    [email protected]
    phone: 713-348-6166
    fax: 713-348-6182



MTC-00017185

From: Kevin Fitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Proposed settlement is insufficient. In order to 
get an appropriate resolution I feel that we need to look toward a 
healthier segment of the technology industry: hardware. In the 
hardware industry their are several standards bodies that allow for 
interoperability and competition. These include JEDEC and IEEE. Some 
of the things that these bodies require includes discosure of 
patents. Just look at the recent incidents with RAMBUS to see how 
these organisations are helpfull to maintain competition. Also these 
standards bodies force companies to work together to generate 
standards very early in the development of new technologies. This 
prevents the ``first kid on the block'' from becoming the 
only kid on the block.
    The main area in the hardware industry where there is little 
competition is with CPUs. This is in my opinion a result of the 
Microsoft monopoly.
    Kevin Fitch



MTC-00017186

From: Matt Rowland
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26379]]

    To whom it may concern:
    As should already be clear to justice department officials, the 
proposed Microsoft Anti-trust settlement appears to be a travesty, a 
measure that in fact remedies none of the complaints raised against 
the software giant while providing the comforting appearance that 
Microsoft has been reprimanded. I imagine that's fine with 
Microsoft. They know the value of publicity and no doubt PR spin-
meisters are already framing a picture of a reinvented Microsoft 
that encourages competition and innovation above all else. The 
company will come out of this with renewed vigor, knowing it can 
even take on the federal government and win.
    The losers, meanwhile, are consumers and competitors. Based on 
what I've seen of Microsoft's behavior in the press, the primary 
goal is profit derived from market domination, with innovation and 
quality seemingly secondary. One can't deny that Microsoft has 
changed the landscape, in many respects for the better, but if its 
strategy for retaining market share is to put the industry it has 
helped to define in a strangehold, it must be restrained.
    How will consumers benefit? How will the tech industry benefit? 
The efficacy of the proposed settlement must be considered carefully 
in light of these two questions to ensure that it has the desired 
effect. The issues are quite complex, but since you are the ones 
tasked with understanding what's involved and evaluating the 
settlement proposal, I trust your decision in this will be the best 
one for the general public and the tech/software industry.
    I'm sure you've been sent this link previously, but it 
summarizes key sticking points in the settlement: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    I'd be wasting my time to attempt to recount the problems with 
the settlement when such a clear exposition of them sits right 
there.
    Respectfully yours,
    Matt Rowland
    TaxWise Technical Support
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    www.paperlove.org



MTC-00017187

From: Ken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to add my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I was not surprised when Microsoft was found guilty of 
engaging in anti-competitive practices. I do not know any computer 
professional that does not believe that Microsoft is in fact a 
monopoly.
    Unfortunately the settlement that has been proposed seems to be 
a rehash of the previous ineffective measures that were levied 
against them 10? years ago.
    I believe that the only truly effective solution is a breakup, 
similar to the settlement against AT&T. It is clear that 
Microsoft is a monopoly. Perhaps as a regulated monopoly real 
competitors can emerge and flourish.
    Ken Goldenberg
    Stoneham, MA
    Sr. Software Engineer



MTC-00017188

From: Jason Metz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
January 23, 2002
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    First of all, I think that Microsoft is an excellent business 
and an American icon, and as such they should be encouraged to act 
in a way that we all be proud of. They are among the best 
corporations in the world at taking established technologies, 
packaging, and marketing them to the mainstream market. They are 
also, as the Department of Justice has proved, adept at the illegal 
use of their desktop OS monopoly to manipulate the access their 
competitors have to the desktop market.
    As a user of computer products and a US citizen, I feel it my 
civic duty to comment on the proposed settlement, as I feel it has 
shortcomings. The settlement as it stands has been obviously crafted 
to avoid a structural remedy, and while it proposes some strong 
remedies in the area of conduct, I feel they are not enough to be 
effective in ensuring that Microsoft will not become a repeat 
offender.
    Where is the penalty? Microsoft has enjoyed an enormous 
financial windfall through their decade of illegal practices, and 
now they are asked to donate $1.4 billion of obsolete hardware 
running Windows to schools? This has been a marketing tactic used by 
both Microsoft and Apple for years.
    Increased familiarity with their products in the school 
translates to strong consumer preference in the years to come.
    Surely there can be some effective penalty arrived at that will 
not severely damage the US economy and yet will not be merely a 
marketing opportunity for the. This settlement, as proposed, sends a 
strong message to the computing industry that it is ``business 
as usual'' and will obviously represent less of a deterrent to 
Microsoft than their lawyers'' fees.
    Under the current version of the settlement, Microsoft appears 
be given broad discretion to deploy intellectual property claims to 
avoid opening up its monopoly operating system API and file formats.
    Based on their past performance, I do not believe this will be 
an effective solution. I think that Microsoft should be forced to 
standardize, disclose and license the entire set of Windows APIs and 
the file formats of its Office applications to any entity on a non-
discriminatory basis, so that it will no longer be a secret how to 
interoperate with Windows. Any Microsoft networking protocols should 
be published in full and approved by an independent network protocol 
body to ensure the independence of the internet. I do not feel 
confidence in the tribunal as proposed and feel it should be more 
independent in nature.
    I hope the Department of Justice has been following the revising 
of Microsoft's Windows XP business liscencing scheme following 
undertarget acceptance by the business community. Industry is saying 
they will not be gouged as Microsoft moves to an ASP model. There is 
a similar remedy for the average consumer (ie. to stick with 
Windows2000), but for how long? There must be interoperability and 
backwards compatibility assurances included in this settlement to 
ensure that Microsoft does not use new applications to leverage the 
adoption of their new, more lucrative, revenue model.
    I close in saying that I appreciate the hard work and 
consideration that the Department of Justice has given this matter 
on behalf of myself and all Americans. It is vital to the national 
interest that innovation and business opportunity at all scales of 
entry be preserved in the face of Microsoft's current domination of 
the desktop.
    Please consider these and other criticisms of the settlement 
proposal, and procede as your conscience dictates, keeping in mind 
the trust we all place in you.
    Jason Metz
    5636 Montgomery Place,
    Vancouver BC, V6T 2C7
    Canada



MTC-00017189

From: Ben Messinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment regarding the 
proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft corporation. In my opinion 
there are many serious shortcomings in the proposed settlement. I 
will take this opportunity to point out only a select few.
    1) The proposed final judgement does not address the issue of 
``file format'' documentation. The DOJ identified non-
disclosure of Microsoft Office file formats as an Applications 
Barrier to Entry (findings of fact, paragraphs 20 and 39)-by 
withholding file format specifications, Microsoft prevents 
competitors from developing applications which can read or write 
Microsoft Office compatible files-thus preventing the exchange 
or sharing of documents between Microsoft Office users and users of 
competitive software products. This strengthens Microsoft's monopoly 
by hindering the exchange of information with non-Microsoft 
products.
    2) The proposed final judgement so narrowly defines 
``API'' (application programming interface) that the 
requirement of Microsoft to disclose it's API's will be interpreted 
in such a way that many of the most important API's will be excluded 
from disclosure.
    3) The proposed final judgement defines ``middleware'' 
and ``Windows'' so narrowly that very slight changes by 
Microsoft virtually guarantee Microsoft the ability to circumvent 
the proposed restrictions by simply altering their products 
slightly.
    4) The proposed final judgement fails to address anticompetitive 
licence restrictions

[[Page 26380]]

currently in use by Microsoft which among other things:
    a) prevent the use of certain windows components in conjunction 
with competing software. For example: The Microsoft Windows Media 
Encoder SDK (a tool for creating windows software)End User Licence 
Agreement states in part ``... you shall not distribute the 
REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in conjunction with any Publicly Available 
Software. ``Publicly Available Software'' means each of 
(i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in 
whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free 
software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or 
distribution models ... Publicly Available Software includes, 
without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of 
the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or 
distribution models similar to any of the following: GNU's General 
Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic 
License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public License; the Netscape 
Public License; the Sun Community Source License (SCSL); ...''
    What this means is that software developers can use the Windows 
Media SDK to develop their software, but they are not allowed to do 
so if their software is made ``publicly available'' under 
the above definition.
    b) Microsoft attempts to prevent the developement of software 
that is compatible with alternative operating system products. The 
Microsoft Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++, is the 
primary toolkit used to create Windows-compatible applications. The 
Microsoft Platform SDK EULA reads in part: Distribution Terms. You 
may reproduce and distribute ... the Redistributable Components... 
provided that (a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only 
in conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product...'' this makes it 
illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++ on Windows-
compatible competing operating systems. By allowing these 
exclusionary behaviors, the proposed final judgement is contributing 
to the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing operating 
systems.
    It is my deepest hope that you will reconsider the proposed 
judgement, and rewrite or amend it in such a maner as to remove the 
many many loop-holes and inadequate provisions which will, if 
implemented as currently proposed, virtually guarantee that 
Microsoft will continue in it's tradition of anti-competitive and 
publicly arrogant disregard for both the letter and spirit of the 
law.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Messinger
    Kennewick, WA
    CC:LUG,[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017190

From: Jeff Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Folks,
    Don't let Microsoft buy their way out of this one. If we're 
going to pretend that we don't support monopolies, let's not support 
the company that everyone knows is a monopoly.
    Also, please be aware, when you are reading the comments you are 
collecting regarding this settlement, that Microsoft is a masterful 
marketing machine, and that they successfully use every opportunity 
they get to sell their products. This includes ``grass-
roots'' marketing, in which they ``stuff the ballot 
box'' with people who express their desire for Microsoft to be 
let alone to ``innovate.''
    Anything in the settlement that enables Microsoft to further 
expand their customer base (through the distribution of free 
software licenses, etc) undermines the very aim of the case itself. 
While they obviously should be allowed to continue doing business, I 
believe it would be wise to focus more on limiting the ways in which 
they can use their market presence to crush competition.
    Thanks for your time.
    Jeffrey Johnson



MTC-00017191

From: Falatko, Jerry (CAP, PTL)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is far too lax and will fail 
to be effective.



MTC-00017192

From: jeff147(a)excite.com
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017192-0001

    I would like to voice my opinion of the proposed settlement of 
the antitrust cases against Microsoft. I am a Systems engineer by 
profession and from the wording of this proposal various software 
applications that are forcefully included in all of the operating 
systems from Microsoft are defined totally incorrectly.
    Some of these software applications are the media player, 
Internet explorer, notepad, wordpad as well as many others.
    All of these software applications are misrepresented as 
middleware. Middleware programs are in the simplest term's 
translators nothing more and nothing less. These middleware programs 
take input in one form and make it available for use by any program 
that can fully support the API ( application programming interface ) 
for a universal way to exchange information between different 
systems. Middleware allows for systems to be changed to another 
manufactures software easily. This is possible because the API's to 
most middleware programs are made fully available to anyone wishing 
to make their product to be compatible.
    Microsoft should be required to fully disclose to the general 
public on a public accessible website the entire API's the programs 
they want to be defined as middleware and be required to make any 
additions or changes available for 90 days before any microsoft 
program may be released can use this change. This requirement would 
help in making completion possible in these areas of the market.
    In closing the current proposed settlement should be rejected 
and rewritten leaving no loopholes or areas were the guilty 
defendant (Microsoft) can dictate who and what the API's can be used 
for.
    Jeff Jacobs
    Systems engineer
    Dallas, Texas



MTC-00017192-0002
    01/29/2002 9:51 A



MTC-00017193

From: Kevin Loechner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The proposed Microsoft settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist 
for Microsoft's predatory business practices. This settlement does 
nothing but preserve the status quo, which allows Microsoft to 
continue exploiting their situation as before. First of all 
something must be done to end the ``Microsoft Tax'', in 
which OEM's are charged a licensing fee by Microsoft for each 
computer they produce, regardless of a Microsoft Operating System 
product being installed on a given machine. This fee is then passed 
along to consumers, who assume they are getting Windows for free 
with their machine. Microsoft must also be forced to open up it's 
APIs and document formats, so third party software companies 
actually are given a fair opportunity to produce a product that 
works as well as Microsoft's products on the Windows Operating 
Systems. With the control that Microsoft is given in keeping their 
document formats and APIs closed, no other company really has a 
chance to compete with Microsoft since they control the Operating 
System. Thank you for taking the time to take my comments into 
consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin A. Loechner
    105 Mt. Washington St.
    Lowell, MA 01854
    (978)452-7982
    [email protected]



MTC-00017194

From: Eugene Regad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement fails to meet the public interest in a 
very critical way:
    Microsoft executives have identified Linux as its number one 
competitor. They vigorously used Linux before the trial court as 
proof of the existence of competition. The trial judge did not 
accept that claim as fact, but did agree the potential was there. 
The settlement does not even acknowledge open source as potential 
competition. The settlement further allows Microsoft to define what 
competition is (solely in the form of ``viable'' 
companies) and hence prevent or suppress open source movement 
competition.
    It would make sense for the settlement to permit that 
``competitor'' to actually

[[Page 26381]]

compete. Linux is just the name for the most prominent competing 
operating system kernel. Many other components make up a usable 
system. Many of these are also released under the same or similar 
``free'' (GNU GPL) or ``open source'' license 
provisions.
    The most useful means of encouraging competition (open source or 
otherwise) is to make it feasible for other parties to write, 
release, and sell competing or complementary products, from the 
kernel through all kinds of end-user applications. To this end, 
three provisions must be added to the settlement:
    1. Microsoft must be required to publish its file formats.
    2. Microsoft must be prohibited from breaking competitive 
products.
    3. A system of financial penalities must be implemented for 
violations.
    Item 1.
    Microsoft must publish, for free use by anyone, without any 
license, all the file formats used by it's operating systems and 
applications. File formats are just the parameters required to read 
or write a information to the hard drive, or for transmission to 
another program or computer. Knowledge of file formats is essential 
to write or use a competitive or complementary product.
    All the variants of such formats must be included, and all 
changes must be promptly published. ``Promptly'' means at 
the moment when Microsoft management determines that a change is 
necessary and provides such formats to its own programmers. 
Publication must include posting to an internet web site accessible 
to all, without any license, registration, or prior consent from 
Microsoft. Any person must be free to copy and republish, document 
or comment upon the formats without any consent of Microsoft.
    This does not give anyone access to the program code used for 
such purposes; Microsoft can still keep its programs, and methods of 
programming secret.
    Item 2.
    Microsoft has a history of breaking competitive programs by 
falsely claiming compliance with ``standards'' and adding 
features which prevent competitive products from working properly. 
The most common method is ``embracing and extending'' 
standards (ISO, IETF, etc). Embracing and extending is actually the 
practice of announcing support for a standard, and then adding 
features which are not documented, are proprietary, copyrighted or 
patented. These ``extensions'' are specifically designed 
to break competing products. One example is ``smart 
quotes'', which is little more than a toy feature to help 
incompetent writers properly close quotes. It is done by changing 
(corrupting) the standard ISO fonts used by the word processor to 
something different than the ISO standard. It shows up in un-aware 
programs by displaying a question-mark or a garbage character. Other 
e&e practices are much more pernicious.
    The settlement should require Microsoft to announce which 
standards it will support, and prohibit Microsoft from claiming 
compliance with any standard that is not supported. These adopted 
standards must be listed on the internet for open reference without 
registration, or prior consent from Microsoft.
    Microsoft must be prohibited from ``extending'' any 
supported standard by adding features not present in the standard. 
It is not necessary to require Microsoft (or any competitor) to 
adopt any standard, or to fully support all features of the 
standard. For many uses, partial support is sufficient. The key to 
preventing unfair competition is to ban Microsoft from breaking 
programs which do comply with standards.
    Item 3.
    In light of the fact that the present case originated in 
Microsoft's failure to comply with an existing consent decree, DOJ 
should establish a schedule of severe financial penalties for 
violations. Otherwise, Microsoft might well find it advantagous to 
cause competitors to ``spin their wheels'' by publishing 
false, incomplete, or misleading information. Violations should be 
considered to begin with the publication of any information which is 
subsequently found to be false, incomplete or misleading. The longer 
the violation period, the greater the penalty. The violation is 
proved by the use of a non-published file format or the perversion 
of an adopted standard in any Microsoft product.
    The use of these methods of encouraging competition have a 
number of advantages:
    1. They are essentially free of financial costs, both to 
Microsoft and the Government. Microsoft already has to document it's 
file formats for it's own use, and almost certainly on-line. 
Publishing the same documentation on the internet is almost 
zero-cost.
    There is no cost (indeed a saving) in NOT perverting the 
implementation of a standard.
    DOJ could accept being a digitally-signed copy of each such 
publication, transmitted at the time of publication to a DOJ 
computer. The digitial signature should be considered binding for 
purposes of determining perjury.
    2. Enforcement may be simplified. It seems likely that 
competitors will closely monitor Microsoft's publication of file 
formats and standards announcements, and compare closely what 
Microsoft programs actually do. In both cases, compliance is only a 
matter of determining facts which can be recognized by any competent 
person.
    DOJ could maintain a web site devoted to receiving documented 
complaints. DOJ might consult commerical and non-commerical 
competitors to establish a structure for entering complaint 
information in a way that DOJ finds useful in summarizing 
observations into facts.
    Eugene D Regad
    [email protected]
    854 Riverview Drive
    Morgantown, WV 26505
    304-599-2889



MTC-00017195

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I do not agree with, or support the proposed settlement 
procedures in regards to the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Trial. 
Microsoft has blatantly and callousy engaged in a business plan 
which intentionally-without remorse-violates current 
Antitrust laws.
    The punishment applied to Microsoft needs to be FAR more severe 
than what is currently being proposed.
    Thank you.
    Rev. Christopher B. Garcia



MTC-00017196

From: Andre Vrignaud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a short note to say that I think the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft is a travesty-don't let them get away with 
dominating the future as much as they have the past.
    AV
    Andre Vrignaud  [email protected]



MTC-00017197

From: Rob La Raus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft Corporation and the United States 
Department of Justice; I do not think the settlement is just. The 
fact of the matter is that Microsoft has been charged with bundling 
applications with it's ubiquitous operating system to improperly 
leverage that software's market dominance.
    They do the exact same thing again with Windows 2000 and Windows 
XP that they did in Windows 98 that got them sued in the first 
place, displaying such disregard for the law that they continued 
disputed practices AS they were being found actionable. The proposed 
settlement is a slap on the wrist and will only serve to intensify 
an already gross corporate arrogance. I encourage you to consider a 
settlement with much more likelihood to have real consequences on 
Microsoft's competition-inhibiting behavior.
    Thank you very much for your work on this matter,
    Rob La Raus
    IT Specialist
    OHSU Foundation, Portland, OR
    [email protected]



MTC-00017198

From: Martin Gelfand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am grateful for this chance to express my opinion concerning 
the Proposed Final Judgement in US vs Microsoft.
    Let me put it plainly: I believe the proposed remedies are 
entirely inadequate, and need to be thoroughly reconsidered in order 
to effectively prevent Microsoft from using anticompetitive tactics 
to retard the development and application of Open Source software.
    An lengthy discussion of the PFJ from this point of view has 
already been provided to your office by Dan Kegel, and is available 
on the WWW at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/

[[Page 26382]]

remedy2.html . Let me focus on just one item.
    At work (I am an Associate Professor at Physics, at Colorado 
State University) and home I run GNU/Linux operating systems on my 
computers. A real annoyance I have to deal with on a regular basis 
is being sent or referred to Word, Excel, and Powerpoint files, 
which in many cases cannot be nicely interpreted using the software 
available on my computers. Much of the monopoly power associated 
with Microsoft lies not in its control of operating systems but in 
its control of the Office suite. The undocumented file formats 
associated with Office are a major Applications Barrier to Entry (as 
discussed in the Findings of Fact) and, in the absence of any 
guaranteed way to run Microsoft Office natively on a GNU/Linux 
system (WINE may work at some point in time, but there is nothing in 
the PFJ to stop Microsoft from working against WINE's success by 
various technical and legal means) there are considerable barriers 
to introduce GNU/Linux systems into office environments which have 
chosen to standardize on Microsoft's Office suite.
    Requiring Microsoft to fully document the file formats 
associated with Office, which will allow Open Source office suite 
developers to more readily generate effective input/output filters 
for Microsoft document formats, ought to be part of any remedy for 
its illegal anticompetitive practices.
    Sincerely,
    Martin Gelfand
    Department of Physics
    Colorado State University
    Fort Collins, CO 80523-1875



MTC-00017199

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If Microsoft has a monopoly on the Intel PC OS market, and they 
have abused that monopoly power, then the remedy as submitted is 
insufficient to curb their behavior. I find it offensive that the 
government, having found that a monopoly exists and that Microsoft 
has abused their monopoly position , is satisfied with a slap on the 
wrist for this firm. They have shown an inability to curb their 
behavior in the past and no intention of curbing their behavior in 
the future. This settlement should be rejected.
    Thank you,
    Ed
    Ed Dale
    Ernst & Young Center for Business Knowledge
    1200 Skylight Office Tower
    1660 West Second Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
    Work Phone: 216-583-1116
    Fax: 216-622-0199



MTC-00017200

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is no punishment, and no restraint 
whatsoever on future abuses. It is unacceptable. Microsoft is the 
most arrogant corporation ever prosecuted for anti- trust actions, 
it must be made an example or the anti-trust laws might as well be 
tossed in the dumpster. regards, -
    Wild Open Source Inc.
    Making the bazaar just a little more commonplace.''
    home: www.smith-house.org
    work: www.wildopensource.com



MTC-00017201

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No (healthy) competion leads to a decay of any society.
    It will encourage bribery and other criminal activity. Besides , 
that much power in a single company will lead the USA to a political 
situation which will work against the USA in the future.
    If you break up that company now ... people around the world 
will benifit from that breakup.
    regs
    HGM Duijker



MTC-00017202

From: Jonathan C. Detert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to make known my concern with the ``Proposed 
Final Judgement''.
    I don't think the settlement is just, and I don't think it 
will make any useful change. In my opinion, it amounts to a warning 
rather than a disciplinary action or a retribution. I.e. ``if 
you do illegal monopolization things again, you'll be in 
trouble''. They did those things, why are they not in trouble 
now?
    The fact that I can't buy an intel-based computer without a 
MicroSoft Wiindows o.s. installed makes me blood boil. Why must I 
subsidize MicroSoft when I have no intent of using it's operating 
system or other software on my computer?
    MicroSoft's practices are NOT in my best interest. If I want to 
buy an Intel based computer, I am forced to subsidize MicroSoft. 
Why?
    Happy Landings,
    Jon Detert
    Unix System Administrator, Milwaukee School of Engineering
    1025 N. Broadway, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202



MTC-00017203

From: Geoffrey Plitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it's a horrible idea.
    -Geoffrey Plitt



MTC-00017204

From: Curt Sahakian
To: Microsoft 
ATR,attorney.general@ po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: the proposed Microsoft Settlement Rewards Microsoft instead 
of punishes it.
    Gentlemen,
    Please see the attached article that explains how the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement Rewards Microsoft instead of punishes it.
    You have been snookered. Shame on you if you understand this. 
Shame on you if you don't.
    Curt Sahakian
    At 1/23/02 12:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
RUSSELL PAVLICEK: ``The Open Source'' InfoWorld.com
Wednesday, January 23, 2002
REWARDING PUNISHMENT
Posted January 18, 2002 01:01 PM Pacific Time
    I'VE RECEIVED A number of requests to address the pending (as of 
this writing) settlement of the civil anti-trust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. Under the pending agreement, Microsoft will be obligated 
to provide hardware and software to thousands of underfunded school 
districts across the country. The logic, if you can call it that, is 
that such schools could benefit greatly from receiving the 
technology they lack.
    Undeniably, there is an emotionally compelling case for this. A 
gigantic company, found guilty of doing wrong, is ordered to help 
the underprivileged. ``We need to do it for the 
children,'' cry the politicos. ``Think of the 
children!''
    ``For the children.'' That's the phrase politicians in 
Washington use to justify an action so irrational that it cannot be 
justified any other way.
    How can I properly characterize this solution? It is like a 
court ordering a convicted drug dealer to give out more free samples 
of heroin to underprivileged children to ensure that their poverty 
does not deprive them of the opportunity to become addicted.
    Sure, public classrooms need more technology. And it is 
especially important that children who don't have as many 
opportunities in life get assistance. But that is not adequate 
justification for assigning the fox to guard the hen house.
    Personally, I like the counterproposal put forward by Red Hat: 
Let Microsoft donate money for computing resources for underfunded 
schools, but let those donations go toward hardware only; then 
populate those machines with open-source software.
    Why open source? Consider the future: What will the schools do 
when they need to upgrade? If you give schools Microsoft software, 
they will be caught in the endless upgrade cycle that has 
characterized life in the Microsoft world. Those upgrades will cost 
money, money that these targeted school districts, by definition, 
cannot spare.
    Instead, arming schools with open-source software will have two 
benefits. First, it will set schools down a long-term path that they 
can afford. The cost of obtaining open-source upgrades is trivial. 
Without low-cost software upgrades, all those nice shiny computers 
run the risk of becoming boat anchors in short order. I'm sure 
someone is saying, ``But open source is too difficult to 
administer!'' Such does not have to be the case, but I'll deal 
with that issue in a future column.
    Also, the Red Hat proposal does not reward Microsoft in the long 
term. If a company is

[[Page 26383]]

convicted of overpowering markets, why would you reward them by 
putting one of the few markets they don't lead under their control? 
This sounds a lot like a seed-unit program for education, not the 
penalty imposed from losing a trial.
    Corporate misdeeds are supposed to earn punishment, not long-
term investment opportunities. I believe we would all be better off 
if the courts acknowledged the difference between the two.
    Would our schools be better off with open source? Let me know at 
[email protected], or sign on to my 
forum at InfoWorld.com.



MTC-00017205

From: Khouri Giordano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is bad idea



MTC-00017206

From: Rick Romero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:57pm
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to comment on the propsed settlement in general, 
and how it relates to Microsoft's monopoly status. In my opinion, 
some monopolies are perfectly tolerable. Those such as Power 
Companies and Water Companies, where ``laying proprietary 
groundwork'' would be too burdonsome to the community to 
necessitate competition. Imagine competition in Water or Power, each 
company with it's own lines. In that form, monopolies can be a good 
thing.
    When it comes to Microsoft and technology in general, this 
groundwork can be reused, and competition can flourish. Microsoft 
has been found, in prior cases, to have tampered with that 
groundwork in order to pursue, and/or maintian it's monopoly status. 
Perhaps the largest example is the Caldera case. Microsoft was 
accused of purposely ensuring that Microsoft Windows would not run 
on DR-DOS. At that time, Microsoft Windows was simply a DOS 
application. Any DOS application would run on any flavor of DOS, be 
it MS-DOS, IBM-DOS, or DR-DOS. Except in the case of Microsoft 
Windows, where the application would specifically check the MAKER of 
the installed DOS, and run based on that alone.
    What has happened now, is that Microsoft has extened it's 
Microsoft Windows application into an OS. Now that Microsoft own the 
OS itself, it has ensured that Microsoft Windows applications will 
not run on any other Operating System. This has severely hampered 
the OS market, because applications must be written twice, or only 
one platform is chosen. It's obvious that Microsoft Windows would be 
the OS of choice, because of it's large installed base.
    I feel that the proposed settlement must address this issue, for 
it is the root cause of Microsoft's monopoly, and the method by 
which this monopoly is abused. Specifically, the Win32 API (API = 
The ``language'' a program talks to the OS in.) should be 
allowed in competing Operating System's, without undue license 
restrictions. WINE is a good example of an attempt to bring that API 
to Linux. Odin is WINE's counterpart for OS/2. Both of these OS's 
are competing with Microsoft Windows, and the availability of an 
alternative Operating System for the average user, would be greatly 
enhanced if Microsoft were to disclose much of that information to 
those competitors. I feel the proposed remedy doesn't touch on 
application compatibility as it should, to allow for competition in 
the marketplace on the desktop level.
    Thank you for your time.
    Rick Romero
    IT Managerph: 262.685.4841
    Valeo, Inc.fax: 262.695.4850
    [email protected]



MTC-00017207

From: Andy Pfiffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    0) The definition of Windows Operating System Product appears to 
be whatever Microsoft wishes it to be.
    1) The Proposed Final Judgement (``PFJ'') doesn't take 
into account Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
    2) The PFJ contains misleading and overly narrow definitions and 
Provisions.
    3) The PFJ fails to prohibit anticompetitive license terms 
currently used by Microsoft.
    4) The PFJ fails to prohibit intentional incompatibilities 
historically used by Microsoft.
    5) The PFJ fails to prohibit anticompetitive practices towards 
OEMs.
    6) The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Please register my opposition to the Proposed Final Judgement.
    Thank you for your time.
    Andrew Pfiffer
    Citizen, United States of America
    19745 SW Page Court
    Aloha, OR 97007



MTC-00017208

From: Tom Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a computational biologist at Washington University in St. 
Louis Medical School. I am in favor of ruling as strongly as 
possible -against- Microsoft in the current case.
    Microsoft is clearly an abusive monopoly, or near-monopoly. If 
Microsoft is not reined in, it will continue to swing its weight 
around, taking all it can for itself like an arrogant, champion 
weighlifter in a 2nd grade lunch line.
    If you do not draw lines, and demonstrate that unacceptable 
behavior has real consequences, then you have given every 
megacorporation a pass that says:
    ** Do Whatever You Like **
    As two trivial examples of how Microsoft continues to exploit 
their position in the market to shut out competition, even in the 
face of the ongoing DoJ trial:
    (1) Microsoft blocked ``independent'' web browsers 
(Opera, Mozilla) from accessing their MSN site, demanding that users 
download Internet Explorer to view the web site. (Oct, 2001)
    Ref:
    http://news.com.com/
2100-1023-274980.html?legacy=cnet&tag=tp-pr
    (2) Microsoft's April ``01 deal with Qwest will move 
current qwest.net ISP customers over to MSN. After the transition, 
Netscape mail will no longer function for these customers!
    ``MSN e-mail is not compatible with the Netscape e-mail 
client''
-from: www.qwest.net/nav4/msn/faq.html#services Further, 
the correspondence sent to qwest.net customers leads the customer to 
believe that they must use a Microsoft email client after the move 
to MSN. Anecdotal evidence suggests that persistent tech support 
calls may provide non-trivial solution that allows use of a non-MS 
email client.
    Ref:
    i) http://slashdot.org/article.pl'sid=01/10/17/
143230&mode=thread
    ii) personal communication with a qwest.net customer in Oregon 
This is only the tip of the iceberg of Microsoft's insulting, 
galling, arrogant, monopolistic behavior that they continue to 
engage in. If you crumple, and you only give Microsoft a light slap 
on the wrist, you are smashing a bottle of champagne over the prow 
of a new era of American monopolistic greed.
    Punish Microsoft!
    Sincerely,
    Thomas A. Jones
    [email protected]
    Washington University Medical School
    Genetics Department
    314-747-8207



MTC-00017209

From: Tod Harter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I beg you to consider the following arguments in favor of more 
drastic action in regards to settling the current litigation against 
Microsoft. As a highly experienced software engineer, IT 
professional, and entrepreneur the proposed remedies are entirely 
inadequate.
    Any engineering group, in this context Microsoft's various 
application development teams working on Microsoft products, gain a 
very substantial advantage from having a special working 
relationship with the developers of the underlying system software. 
While the proposed remedy attempts to mitigate this advantage it is 
only common sense that the best possible result one could hope from 
these remedies would be that 3rd party developers would achieve 
parity with Microsoft's internal developers. In fact this result is 
not particularly likely. The greatest source of these advantages is 
not in having access to priviledged information. It is in fact the 
working relationship which exists between these two groups. 
Microsoft's developers would continue to have an intimate working 
knowledge of the processes, procedures, persons, and techniques 
characteristic of the operating system development teams. Many of 
these people

[[Page 26384]]

have worked closely together for many years. Any MS product 
development team would be bound to continue to maintain these lines 
of communication and understandings with their collegues in 
operating system development. The result is that Microsoft would 
continue to gain a very substantial advantage for its own 
developers. They would know who to talk to, what questions to ask, 
how to request new features, and where to go for problem resolution. 
How will anyone else compete against them? Given that Microsoft has 
a virtually complete monopoly on desktop operating systems the 
result of the currently proposed remedies under these conditions 
amounts to allowing Microsoft to continue to leverage its monopoly 
into other markets. This process could have extremely dire results 
for the future of the entire IT industry, and more broadly for the 
entire economy as a whole.
    Consider the following likely scenario:
    Microsoft continues to dominate the dosktop OS market (virtually 
a given). They furthermore continue to integrate their server and 
desktop OS products ever more tightly (a trend in the industry 
regardless of any monopoly situation). Given the proprietary nature 
of these integration technologies and protocols no other server OS 
vendor will be able to provide the same level of integration. This 
integration is a high value-add. Thus Microsoft will continue its 
pattern of growing dominance of the server OS market. Once a 
critical mass of the server market relies entirely on MS's software 
there will be NO incentive (indeed a huge disinsentive) for MS to 
deploy client/server technologies which are non-proprietary and 
available for use by non-microsoft products. Essentially MS will own 
both ends of the network and will be in a position to dictate how, 
when, where, and at what cost these technologies are deployed and 
used. It is highly likely that most business process and indeed most 
communications technology will eventually be based on these 
techniques. Is it really wise to construct a public policy which 
eventually leads to the complete domination by one private entity of 
all of society's communications and IT infrastructure? Personally I 
can hardly imagine a more foolhardy and unwise policy, either as a 
business person or as a citizen of this country.
    Respectfully
    Tod G. Harter
    Chief Technology Officer
    Aptus Ventures, LLC



MTC-00017210

From: Read, Danny
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Summary: I am against this settlement.
    The current settlement fails to restrict Microsoft from 
capitalizing on its monopoly in the operating systems arena. 
Competitors face an anti-competetive environment as Microsoft 
continues to leverage its OS monopoly to restrict access to 
application development, to give software away in an attempt to 
price customers out of the market and to pursue restrictive 
licensing agreements. Please do not allow this mild slap of the hand 
to masquerade as justice for what the court has already found to be 
anti-competitive practices.
    Thank you,
    Danny Read



MTC-00017211

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As planet earth and technology are no longer local but global 
may I suggest the strong American company Microsoft be lifted from 
past constraints. This would allow this company in our great nation 
to continue to provide their capabilities through out the world be 
it in technology itself or in its various assists to underdeveloped 
nations.
    Thank you



MTC-00017212

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft must be stopped and that the only way it 
can be done is for the government to break them up fine them very 
heavily and make them open up all their programming API so that 
everyone can partake in technology for America.



MTC-00017213

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement with Microsoft is fair. It s time to get 
on with things rather than take this further.
    Just because one company is more successful than another is no 
reason to penalize them.



MTC-00017215

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Have never owned Microsoft stock. I feel what the government did 
to that company was an abomination. One only has to look at what 
happened to the best telephone system in the world when they broke 
up AT&T. That is progress? Have you ever tried to make a call at 
an airport? Simply from the security aspects for our country it 
would have been best left alone. If it ain t broke don t fix it. Or 
better I m from the Government and I m here to help you . Save us 
from the do-gooders .



MTC-00017216

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    The sooner this Microsoft case gets resolved the better it will 
be for American business and the public. Please help the economy 
move on. -bsThe economy is fragile enough 
at this time without being held hostage to the judicial system.
    Thank you.



MTC-00017217

From: Malcolm Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft DOJ Settlement January 23, 2002 Renata B. Hesse 
Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 601 D Street NW Suite 
1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse, I am opposed to the proposed DOJ / Microsoft 
remedy. As a manager of a small municipal water system I am 
responsible for a variety of computer hardware and software systems 
that are used to supply water to our customers. Some of these 
software applications are non-Microsoft middle-ware products. I am 
concerned about the future viability of the companies that produce 
this software if Microsoft continues its anticompetitive behavior 
that it has exhibited. I am also concerned about future file format 
compatibility issues.
    The settlement that the US Department of Justice reached with 
Microsoft will do little, if anything to remedy the many behaviors 
that Microsoft has been found guilty of engaging in. The oversight 
committee that was to be formed is too small to be effective. This 
group also needed sufficient resources to properly monitor and 
control illegal practices in a timely manner. I urge the Court to 
seek a settlement that would provide benefit to software customers 
and the public.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Malcolm Fox II
    Mt. Pleasant, MI.



MTC-00017218

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Very simply stated this settlement serves both the industry 
overall the economy and the public that has reaped the benefits of a 
technology developed in the true Free American tradition.



MTC-00017219

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this case resolved. It has gone on too long and is 
wasting taxpayers money. Our economy is suffering and getting this 
case settled would give it a boot up. Thank you.



MTC-00017220

From: Ted Oliver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a US citizen who is very concerned that the proposed DOJ 
settlment of the Microsoft Antitrust trial will not have any 
positive impact on redressing the wrongs Microsoft was convicted of. 
Microsoft has shown their contempt for past consent decrees, so I 
don't see why the new one will be any different. Additionally, at 
this point in time, despite their proven illegal acts, Microsoft 
still holds the market ``rewards'' they accomplished via 
those illegal acts. I do not see how the proposed settlement will

[[Page 26385]]

help restore competition in the crucial areas of desktop operating 
systems and office applications. At this point, I feel there needs 
to be an effort to *restore* competitive balance, not to let 
Microsoft continue forward without any credible competition.
    Thank you for your time,
    System Administrator
    Center for Desert Archaeology
    http://www.cdarc.org
    Database Manager
    Desert Archaeology Inc.
    [email protected]/[email protected]



MTC-00017221

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fewel government is too involved in our lives. Where attention 
is needed is is lacking like controlling terrorists in this country. 
Microsaoft is a business and should be allowed to operate as such. 
What about a free enterprise system and competition? Why are public 
utilities allowed to operate as they do?
    Microsoft has excellent products and I haven t found anything 
worth changing too. They should be allowed to motor along at their 
own pace without the interruption and input of our fine government.



MTC-00017222

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe a settlement would serve the best good of the economy 
the public and the technology industry. This case has been a waste 
of tax payer money and has gone on too long. We need to let 
Microsoft get back to business and continue producing excellent 
software.



MTC-00017223

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am personally thankful the Microsoft antitrust case has come 
to a satisfactory end. Microsoft has achieved an enviable position 
in the software industry based on quality products that have 
dramatically improved the quality and accessibility of modern 
computer technology to the public. I believe the antitrust case was 
fueled by parties resentful of Microsoft s success in the market. 
With little to offer in the way of innovation these parties sought 
to use the judicial force of the US government to achieve what they 
could not achieve through the free-market economy. As an employee in 
the U.S. biotechnology industry I look upon the legal precedents set 
in other high tech industries as a model for potential biotech 
industry regulations. For the US to maintain its strength in 
technology three requirements must be met: 1.
    Protection of intellectual property 2. A free market economy 3. 
A supportive rather than antagonistic federal government. I believe 
the settlement in the Microsoft case is fair and reasonable. Had the 
ruling been otherwise I fear that each of these requirements would 
be forever compromised and we would be witnessing the beginning of 
the decline in US technology leadership.



MTC-00017224

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Nov 3rd settlement with Microsoft is fair and 
reasonable and will be in the best interest of all concerned.



MTC-00017225

From: Timothy J. Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement, 
under the Tunney Act. The PFJ does not contain broad enough 
restrictions on Microsoft. Under this proposal, Microsoft will 
continue to exert monopoly power in the PC market and will use the 
monopoly power to gain monopolies in handheld computers (WinCE/
PocketPC) home entertainment systems (X-Box), server computing 
(.NET) as well as other markets.
    Since Microsoft has monopoly power, they should be required to 
expose their programming APIs, programming languages, file formats, 
and network protocols to use by any possible competition. The 
requirements need to be clear and broad to avoid having Microsoft 
hide behind some loophole.
    The current proposal does not offer these restrictions and thus 
is not sufficient to dissuade Microsoft from continuing its practice 
of anticompetitive behavior. This proposal is not in the public 
interest.
    -tim



MTC-00017226

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government NEVER should have gone after Microsoft in the 
first place a travesty of justice that we believe was instigated by 
Clinton at the behest of his campaign contributors who were 
Microsoft s competitors. The war against Microsoft certainly hasn t 
helped consumers or investors and it started the market and economy 
downturn. Far better had the government gone after criminal 
activities and accounting malpractices in the ENRON debacle. The 
Microsoft settlement was fair. Let the settlement stand and put an 
end to this madness.



MTC-00017227

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope that this will end this witch hunt. In my opinion 
Microsoft has been unfairly trampled upon. It is fortunate that we 
have an Attorney General who has the clear vision to right a most 
terrible wrong which has been handed to Microsoft in the interests 
of politics.



MTC-00017228

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft was the company who has been in the forefront of the 
industry. There were no rules due to the newness of the industry. It 
it a shame that the competitors who followed were allowed to use the 
government to compete with this company instead of using American 
ingenuity. Free Enterprise isn t so free these days. It s time to 
settle this case. I believe if the competitors had the knowledge and 
creative minds Mr Gates does they would be able to draw the comsumer 
to them. It is time to let the open market deceide which company is 
their choice. There has been enough tax dollars spent on case that 
should never have come about in the first place.
    Thank you
    Lynn Russ



MTC-00017229

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the justice department should take a harder line with 
Microsoft



MTC-00017230

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Can t we all just get along?



MTC-00017231

From: Leonard Hoffnung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe that this settlement is counter to the 
interests of the American public, deleterious to the American 
economy, and inadequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Leonard Hoffnung
    1608 University Ct A-212
    Lexington, KY 40503

[[Page 26386]]



MTC-00017232

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam: While I appreciate the fine work of our DOJ 
and can only imagine how difficult it must be a times I do believe 
that your efforts in the MICROSOFT case were mis-directed. I m old 
enough to remember when the first home and small office computers 
were made available...and how impossible is seemed to be to purchase 
software that would work properly with the system installed on the 
computer. After a while the concerted call from most consumers was 
why don t they make a common language that is recognizable by all 
(or most) computers or why can these software packages be easier to 
install and use. Well MICROSOFT listened...as any vendor or company 
intent on profitability would listen. Over time they developed the 
common system and the easy to install software that we now take for 
granted. I work for a small business I know what research and 
development costs are all about...MICROSOFT led the way to this 
common base of understanding...probably spending some big bucks to 
do so...and left everyone else in the dust. How do I see it? I see a 
lot of disgruntled tech-heads who felt that the field would never 
accept the MICROSOFT way...and continued on their blind path to 
obsolence. And then when it became apparent even to them that no one 
wanted their unique systems...they cried foul and looked to the 
government for help. Let me ask them this...who helped the mom & 
pop drug stores when the big chain drug stores hit the street? Now 
you ve got Walgreens and Osco and many others of that size all 
catering to our pharmacuetical needs...for less money than the 
smaller drug stores could ever imagine...but no one is helping them.
    Leav



MTC-00017233

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This in no way reflects the opinions of Soutwest Gas 
Corporation. This is my personal opinion: GET OVER IT! I may not 
agree with how Microsoft was started or survives without them we 
would still be in the dark ages of computing. If Microsoft gives 
consumers bits and pieces of scaled down applications good for us. 
This should spur on complaining companies to strive to make a more 
robust product to sell us as a third party vendor. Also the 
government wouldn t have wasted its time and money if Microsoft didn 
t have such deep pockets! I deal with several different software 
companies and I don t hear any Microsoft employees complaining about 
the way they are treated either!



MTC-00017234

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Federal suit against Microsoft is completely 
unfounded. I consider MSFT to be a strategic American resource that 
is being needlessly enfeebled by the protracted legal challenges 
being brought against it. The current settlement offer should be 
quickly approved so that Microsoft can re-focus on retaining 
American dominance in its commercial sector.



MTC-00017235

From: SMichelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very concerned that the currently proposed Microsoft 
settlement will not ensure a competitive marketplace. I am 
especially concerned with developments in the next phase of internet 
services in the form of proprietary protocols used in .Net- 
without open communication standards and authentication protocols, 
internet services will be de facto ``owned.''
    Regards,
    /Sharon Lake



MTC-00017236

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the microsoft case.



MTC-00017237

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the government should let Microsoft continue to create 
inovastive software. Why should they be penalized if the competition 
cant keep up or do as well. I know if Microsoft continues to bring 
to my business software designed to integrate with one another I 
will be much better because of it.



MTC-00017238

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Gov. had no business even going after Microsoft. They should 
stick to the business that they are supposed to be doing & not 
going after businesses!



MTC-00017239

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case should be settle as you have proposed. It has cost way 
too much tiem and money already. Those that are trying to prolong it 
are doing it for their on personal agrandizment and not for the 
benefit of users as a whole.



MTC-00017240

From: David Petersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in regard to the public comment period on the 
proposed Microsfot antitrust settlement.
    After reviewing the proposed settlement, I feel that it is 
inadequate in punishing Microsoft for past actions and in fostering 
a more competitive environment. The proposed settlement should be 
rejected and more consideration should be given to the findings and 
rulings of the Circuit Court and lower courts.
    David Petersen
    Senior Systems Administrator
    SME Hosting, NTT/Verio



MTC-00017241

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has revolutionized the computer industry and but not 
for MS DOS we wouldn t be doing this. Integrated programs make 
things easier for the user. The suit should never have been brought 
in the first place but let s settle this without splitting 
Microsoft. If the settlement is the best the government has to offer 
let s do it.



MTC-00017242

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the states are trying to prolong this case. I feel 
that the remidies recommended by the US Department of Justice are 
fair and should be adopted by the remaining plantifs.



MTC-00017243

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As the CEO of an OEM system builder and compter service company 
we rely on Microsoft software and support anything that hurts 
Microsoft also hurts us. Microsoft has always been open generous 
with us and has never penalized us for using other operating systems 
such as Linux and FreeBSD. We also use Microsoft software because of 
it s high reliability and low cost. I think I speak for most of the 
tech world when I say let s get this finished so we can all get back 
to work. This is hurting all of the tech industry not just Microsoft 
it also hurts the tax payers as well.
    Daniel Nelms
    CEO BeThere Inc.



MTC-00017244

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As MICROSOFT goes so goes the NASDAQ and hence the Big Board and 
the whole economy. If government would get out of trying to control 
free enterprise and innovation especially with technology this 
country could move forward once again. I would like to see the judge 
throw out these latest appeals by visibility-seeking attorneys 
general. They are all on their private power-plays. She should 
acknowledge that a settlement has been reached with the DOJ and 
simply rule that it will stand. She could note that the settlement 
has not had a chance to be proven right and she was ruling to give 
it that chance now.

[[Page 26387]]

    Winifred Anthony Stearns



MTC-00017245

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First let me say that from where I sit apparently some 
infractions were committed by MS with respect to fair trade 
practices. MS should be slapped down for that. Second if not for the 
aggressive practices of MS we would not now have the choices of 
programs from other software companies. They were spurned on by the 
might of MS and not put out of business. Competion is important on 
all endeavors of commerce. I feel that the courts have gone far 
enough with regards to the current case. The States must back off 
and look elswhere for sources of income and not from MS. I have no 
stock or holdings in MS.
    Dan Kelliher
    PS...I do think the quicker this is properly resolved the sooner 
the econemy will recover. You can almost say that our decline in the 
econemy started when the federal and state brought suite!



MTC-00017246

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to settle and get on with business I expect that the 
government went after Microsoft because they didn t give a lot of 
big contriubutions to Washington politions get off their case.



MTC-00017247

From: Alan Oursland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    Sincerely,
    Alan Oursland
    1750 TImber Ridge Rd #114
    Austin, TX 78741



MTC-00017248

From: null at spack.org
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am writing this as a technically aware consumer opposed the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. Having read the settlement, I 
see numerous problems.

-as was the case with the 1994 consent decree, the 
``products'' and terms are defined so specifically that 
Microsoft could easily change a product name, or in the case of IE 
change it's versioning schema, and completely and totally bypass any 
restrictions this settlement seeks to enforce.
-the requirements for Microsoft's release of documentation is 
entirely in favor of Microsoft. Should they choose to make a change 
to the documentation days before the deadline for release to ISV's, 
they can then exclude any ISV that doesn't meet the new 
requirements. How is that helpful to ISV's? Microsoft has shown in 
the past (see Caldera vs Microsoft) that they will 
``hobble'' or otherwise change their product to 
``break'' a competing ISV's product.
-Microsoft's new licensing agreements with Enterprise 
customers require them to
    A) pay a yearly license fee for all of their desktops, running 
Windows or not, or
    B) agree that in exchange for discounts on selected products, 
they will not use, or even test, *any* competing products. This is 
especially harmful for businesses that are outgrowing Microsoft's 
SQL Server product.
    Or,
    C) pay full price for every desktop, running windows or not, 
when they choose to upgrade. There is no longer upgrade pricing 
separate from this ``New and Improved'' licensing program 
from Microsoft. In the interest of brevity, I will stop here. I 
could easily go on for several more pages, however. The main problem 
I have with the proposed settlement is that, again, Microsoft has 
managed to skew language to their benefit, get sections watered down 
for their benefit, and otherwise change the settlement for the 
purpose of expanding their monopoly into areas not specifically 
covered by the agreement.
    Thank you for your time,
    Joel C. Sadler
    303.568.0899
    joel [email protected] keyid: 
0x3736B612

MTC-00017249

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement purposed is fair and equaliable. The 
parties should expedite the settlement to decrease further spending 
on this matter. The dollars spent thus far exceed what is reasonable 
and it is time to put this matter to rest and move on.



MTC-00017250

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let s get this settlement deal done. You ve wasted enough of my 
tax money killing the American Dream already!



MTC-00017251

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is in the best interest of my business to invoke the 
settlement of November 3 2000.



MTC-00017252

From: Nick mckinney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have some comments regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement 
that I would like to share. In paragraphs D and E under Prohibited 
Conduct, the settlement states that Microsoft must make available 
``the APIs and related Documentation'' and 
``Communications Protocols''. This is good, but, if I'm 
reading it correctly, paragraph I (the paragraph about the licensing 
terms) leaves out one very important group: the open source 
programmers. The settlement in no way guarantees that any 
intellectual property licensed from Microsoft can be included in any 
open source software. Two things prevent this. One is allowing 
Microsoft to collect a royalty for use of its intellectual property.
    The other is that ``an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's, or OEM's 
right may be conditioned on its not assigning, transferring or 
sublicensing its rights under any license granted under this 
provision''. The very nature of open source software requires 
the source code written to be made publicly available, but this 
might qualify as transferring the IP license to anyone who receives 
the source code.
    I have no problem with Microsoft collecting a royalty if the end 
product that uses Microsoft's IP is sold for a profit. However, if 
all of the IP is licensed to organizations or people who are able to 
abide by the proposed licensing requirements, it leaves open source 
software with no way to interoperate with Microsoft's products, 
which is the whole point of requiring that Microsoft license its IP. 
If Microsoft is allowed to remain a controlled monopoly, then any 
organization that wishes to compete on equal ground with Microsoft 
must be able to write software that interoperates with Microsoft's 
software. I think all programmers, including open source 
programmers, should be guaranteed the ability to compete with 
Microsoft on equal ground.
    Nick McKinney



MTC-00017253

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP SPENDING TAYPAYER MONEY IN IT S 
PURSUIT OF MICROSOFT. THIS IS A FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM IN OUR 
COUNTRY & MICROSOFT S SUCCESS SHOWS IT WORKS WITHOUT GOVERNMENT 
INTERVENTION. JUST LEAVE BUSINESS ALONE.



MTC-00017254

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I haven t read all of the documents exhaustively my 
position as Lead Server Engineer for our Utah plan has given me 
ample opportunities through the years to see and feel the strong-arm 
tactics that many companies and individuals have talked and written 
about. I feel that even more punitive measures should be in place in 
order to stop them from getting a monopoly in many different areas 
in the computer arena.
    It s difficult to say how best to accomplish this but experience 
has shown us that Microsoft s business tactics certainly need some 
constraint. As the competition dwindles we will be ever more at 
their mercy.

[[Page 26388]]



MTC-00017255

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop the prosecution and the persecution of Microsoft! 
Especially since 9/11 America needs for our businesses to succeed 
and not continue to be subjected to the predations of the Clinton 
years.
    Further moves against this American success story will only 
serve to choke an economic engine that we all need to function. Stop 
the madness!



MTC-00017256

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Hesse
    I strongly urge the Federal Government to accept the agreement 
with Microsoft. It is in the best interest of the DOJ and the nation 
to bring an end to this situation. We ve spent enough taxpayers 
money on this and there is no good reason to spend more. The longer 
this case drags on the negative impact on the national economy will 
increase. It is time to stop.
    Charles Dorsett



MTC-00017257

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a computer user for a long pereiod of time and feel 
that Microsoft have provided me one of the largest bargins I have 
ever had from any other provider.I also believe that when the 
Clinton administration started the court action my 401k went south 
and has not yet returned.Please leave them alone and let us all 
benifit from their brain power !



MTC-00017258

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The lawsuit against Micosoft was totally without merit. It only 
protected companies that make inferior products and did nothing but 
cost the tax payers money. The settlement is fine.



MTC-00017259

From: Brett Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the proposed settlement with Microsoft to be completely 
unsatisfactory. The proposed settlement still leaves Microsoft with 
too many ways to have an unfair advantage in the marketplace. I 
believe nothing less than splitting up the company into different 
businesses will suffice.
    Brett Carter



MTC-00017260

From: jerry@amusement consulting.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why perpetuate the endless process that allows government to 
intervene in the private sector. While anti-trust protection is 
important we must look at overall benefit Microsoft has provided to 
the USA economy over the past decade. Who else has demonstrated 
leadership in this technology beside Microsoft? Others have meager 
Research and Development budgets and have fallen to the superior 
product developed through intense R & D efforts. Why should 
anyone else continue to reap benefit (settlements) from Microsoft? 
Has the general public complained and refused to purchase Microsoft 
products? What would the final effect be on the USA citizens if the 
Government Agencies pursuing this issue forced Microsoft into 
ineffective management structure or even out of business? At some 
point the letter of the law must be compromised to ensure the 
effective tools are available that fuel the small-business engine as 
it concerns the overall economy. Large mainframe computers and their 
technology do not drive the economy today the way it might have when 
laws were written. Let it go and perhaps Microsoft will have enough 
financial resources to continue to provide the tools we all need. It 
would be a travesty of justice if state governments realized 
financial gain from this process.



MTC-00017262

From: Jim Potter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We feel that the proposed Microsoft Settlement is inappropriate. 
Please set it aside and either (a) prosecute the case, or (b) 
develop a settlement that will not further entrench the monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Potter
    45th Parallel Processing
    (503) 769-9138
    [email protected]
    Those that would give up a necessary freedom for temporary 
safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.
    Ben Franklin



MTC-00017263

From: 
Tekakwitha.Conference@ worldnet.att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the statements that have been given/presented.



MTC-00017264

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is important to concentrate on curbing antitrust behavior 
rather than persuing punitive settlements.



MTC-00017266

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why the big fuss about Microsoft s so-called monopoly? Why not 
prosecute those companies that are tying up U.S. food companies into 
mega-monopolies-i.e. Cargill WalMart Phillip Morris Tyson-
Smithfield (including IBP) ADM Nestle s ties into U.S. companies 
etc. These are the people who are sacking the consumer! Please use 
taxpayer resources for protecting the taxpayers-not for 
protecting your friends in big businesses
    Oracle Netscape Sun Micro et al.



MTC-00017267

From: Dean Lythgoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Consumer Input...
    As a software engineer, I believe that Microsoft has acted only 
in their best interests. I understand their position and their 
argument. But their monopoly is obvious.
    My input...
    Please make sure that the monopoly practices are stopped. This 
can only happen with specific and general restrictions and 
penalties. There needs to be a system set up to investigate and 
resolve any further misdeeds. We are talking about Billions of 
dollars-so misdeeds will happen. There must be measures in 
place to handle this.
    Thank you,
    Dean Lythgoe



MTC-00017268

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Competition is something for the marketplace. Please leave the 
software industry alone and spend the millions on better subjects 
such as education and defense. A slowdown in IT technology 
developoments could have a dramatic impact on the world s economy.



MTC-00017269

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s appauling that Microsoft should even have to defend 
themselves in this frivolous display of Government Bureaucracy. 
Gates had more insight than the rest and should be rewarded justly 
for it. He built the system we all benefit from it everyday. It s 
called being a capitalist in an entrepreneurial society. You want to 
talk about anti-trust and monopoly take a look at the US postal 
service for God s sake. They are the worst run quasi-Government 
organization and have a monopoly on the delivery business yet are 
too bureaucratic to make a profit. The same customers (retail 
printers)that send them billions of dollars worth of postage every 
year they are now trying to unfairly compete with.
    Their website offers direct mail fulfillment and printing. Talk 
about an area where the Government should focus time. Leave 
Microsoft and Gates alone and look behind your own doors first!!

[[Page 26389]]



MTC-00017270

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the settlement in this case. Enough already! Let 
s settle this and move on to more important matters.



MTC-00017271

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree that Microsoft violted anti-trust 
regulations as they were originally structure. Microoft s actions 
actually aided consumers nd business by providing a universally 
recognized platform and standard in the computer world. Without it 
we would likely be faced with many incompatable programs with 
subtantial expense requried for conversion when transacting business 
with other companies.
    The settlement goes beyond any needed redress and should either 
be reduced or at most let stand as is if acceptable to Microsoft.



MTC-00017272

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the settlement did far too little to curb Microsoft 
s exploitation of its dominant market position. When the Mafia uses 
tactics like those MS uses it s called the protection racket or just 
plain extortion. If MS cared about maximizing techological 
development in PC software it would stop suppressing competition 
(especially by buying up competitive products only to cease all 
development) and embrace a competitive environment. The only reason 
that Windows has gone as far as it has is that MS has been able to 
consistently strong-arm PC manufacturers buyers just assume that 
whatever the manufacturers install is required for their PCs to 
work. If there is a next time do the job right:
    Provide for the real possibility of competition in PC software 
instead of renewing MS s license to force manufacturers to install 
its OS (and only its OS). This sets the stage for PC maufacturers to 
agree to bundle MS s application packages because they run better 
under Windows than any others. Of course they run best-MS uses 
its inside knowledge of the OS to make sure that they do because 
they don t want competitors (which are necessary to maximize 
innovation) they want market share any way they can get it.



MTC-00017273

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Implementation of the settlemnt should take place as quickly and 
efficiently as possible. It serves no purpose to allow special 
interest groups to continue to ask for more and more from the 
settlement.
    Microsft is at the top of the hill in its field That will not 
always be the case. I hope the next king of the hill attains that 
position by providing products that we the people buy not through 
litigation that atempts to destroy what has been built.
    Sincerely
    Michael Schwitz



MTC-00017274

From: Erin McClellan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the settlement is terrible. please if you have any love for your 
country listen to thosewho are attempting to make people realize 
what is really happening.



MTC-00017275

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I d believe the case against Microsoft should be settled now. It 
should never have been brought against the company. I am indebted to 
Microsoft for providing software that works. When I go to other 
brands of software I still face problems that I can t resolve as I m 
experiencing now with Symantec s Norton SystemWorks 2002.



MTC-00017276

From: Bart McPherson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It will not stop their 
anticompetitive behavior.
    Thank you,
    Bart McPherson
    Cleveland, Ohio



MTC-00017277

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Unnecessary lawsuits against technology co. will decrease 
compettition in Hi.Tech. and consumers will pay higher prices. 
Additional lawsuits by states will benefit only lawyers.



MTC-00017278

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle and get on with letting to company do it s business. Time 
wasted is not helping any one.



MTC-00017279

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I beleive Microsoft has been victimized for the last three years 
by sore-loser competitors(especially Sun and Oracle whose attorneys 
browbeat Justice into filing this meritless suit) by Federal 
prosecutors out to make a name for themselves and by state attorney 
generals seeking publicity by coattailing on the action.
    Enough! The settlement reached in November is more than 
appropriate and should be concluded. Ridiculous amounts of taxpayer 
dollars and Microsoft shareholder resources have been wasted on this 
groundless action. It s time the Justice Department concentrated on 
some of the real monopolistic threats like airlines oil companies 
and media mergers instead of harassing a company that has done more 
to empower consumers and enhance our economy than any other in the 
last 50 years.
    L. Neal Amidei



MTC-00017280

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this was started by Bill Clinton at the request of his 
campaign contributor Netscape. It is illegal harassment of Microsoft 
and should be dropped immediately. Microsoft has every right to 
market their products as they see fit.The US Government should not 
get involved in the marketing practices of private companies.



MTC-00017281

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not sure why the people are allowed to comment. This is a 
legal issue about which 99.99% of the people know absolutely 
nothing. However here are my thoughts. First Microsoft products 
drive me nuts. They screw up at the most inopportune times and I am 
stuck with them because everything runs on them. There service is 
lousy and expensive. In fact I don't think they want to deal with 
customers at all.
    Therefore it would be nice to see them spanked. But this lawsuit 
makes no sense to me at all. I do not see why it was brought in the 
first place. The idea of breaking up the company was so incredibly 
stupid that Democrats had to be involved. Bill Gates pushed his 
business to the hilt just as I did before going out of business. I 
did not break any laws and I don't see where Gates did either. If 
the competing internet company was not based in Orrin Hatch's state 
this lawsuit may never have happened. End it with the least possible 
damage to Microsoft because no one else can keep us going. If the 
settlement can get them to be more careful and thorough before 
sending products to the market please do so. If you can get them to 
be more responsive to us users please do so. None of us gain if 
Microsoft gets hurt.



MTC-00017282

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I endorse the MSFT settlement. The case should be closed and the 
settlement agreed to for the good of all of the U.S. It will help 
the economy and be a fair thing to do for all concerned.



MTC-00017283

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26390]]

    I think that the opposition to the settlement is the work of 
competitors of Microsoft who are simply looking to gain any kind of 
advantage they can. Microsoft is a fine American company that should 
be permitted to innovate for the benefit of the consuming public. 
The public is in favor of this settlement and in favor of a new look 
at anti trust law so that truly creative companies can thrive and 
not be the subject of legal actions from their less innovative 
competitors.



MTC-00017284

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is a reasonable compromise. 
We need Companies like Microsoft to maintain our technical 
leadership position in the world. Actions that damage that position 
are just plain self-serving and stupid.



MTC-00017285

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get it over with. Microsoft should not have been prosecuted in 
the first place



MTC-00017286

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support Microsoft. The govt. should not be involved.



MTC-00017287

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the case with Microsoft ASAP. There is nothing to 
be gained by further litigation except lining the pockets of the 
attorney. Too many tax dollars have been spent on this suit already. 
Microsoft's competitors would like to prolong the case to keep them 
from improving their own products. In our new global economy 
Microsoft provides the opportunity for America to lead the computer 
markets. Without Microsoft we would be using a Chinese operating 
System not Solaris.



MTC-00017288

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my hope that the Microsoft settlement be 
approved. I am a user of Microsoft Office and the Microsoft Windows 
Operating System and am relieved that the company will remain in one 
piece so that the integration of features found in these software 
programs may continue. Microsoft has an office near my home and they 
have shown a mindfulness to the community by providing free 
information meetings that help their customers develop computer 
skills. In addition Microsoft has provided free of charge resources 
that have helped the disabled to find employment. After the 
September 11 attacks Microsoft also provided about $10,000,000 worth 
of software and personnel to aid in mobilizing the recovery effort. 
I believe these evidences of civic responsibility should be 
remembered. I can be reached at my e-mail telephone and address 
listed above.
    Sincerely
    Maurice Laurence jr.



MTC-00017289

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice as well as other agency's of the 
federal government should get off the backs of business let business 
have some air without always suffocating business so that business 
can keep people working and put the unemployed to work. It appears 
that government will not give up until it breaks both the will of 
the people and drains there pocket books. The only thing that 
government believes is right and correct is when it extorts money 
from the citizens and passes more laws to eliminate the freedoms 
that the founders of this country came here to preserve.



MTC-00017290

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case with Microsoft ASAP. The sooner this 
case is settled our tax dollars can be used for other more important 
purposes. Thank you for your earliest action on this matter.



MTC-00017291

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No one has ever forced me to purchase a Microsoft product. I 
have purchased them by choice. I do not believe that their products 
are overpriced. I agree that this case against Microsoft should be 
settled with no more litigation.



MTC-00017292

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the prior settlement between the U.S. (and other 
involved state governments) and Microsoft is fair and equitable and 
the whole affair needs closure. I agree that Microsoft should not 
have leveraged and embedded software and especially its own browser 
into its platform operating systems they were licensing and selling 
and those that came preloaded on new computers. CONSUMERS should 
have had full disclosure and opportunity to decide the use thereof 
accordingly. But I personally do not agree that the remedy for those 
receiving the settlement should be extended and I definitely have 
not seen anything personally yet that merits Microsoft being busted 
up or divided in anyway. Unless there is something new to report it 
is time to move on.



MTC-00017293

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The American government assault on the successful American 
enterprise Microsoft represents to me an appalling and flagrant 
misuse of taxpayer funds. It is counterproductive in these weak 
economic times and is government at its worst. I demand that the DOJ 
cease immediately its assault on Microsoft and stop shaking down 
American businesses.



MTC-00017294

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My family and I support the settlement reached November 3rd 
between MicroSoft and the Federal Government.



MTC-00017295

From: Charles Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:00pm
Subject: problems with Microsoft settlement
    Please consider carefully Dan Kegel's ``Open Letter to DOJ 
Re: Microsoft Settlement'' You can find it at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Charles Lewis
    Dir of Administrative Computer Services
    Southwestern Adventist University
    817-556-4720
    [email protected]



MTC-00017296

From: Liz Vogel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    As a computer professional, I routinely work with Microsoft 
products-not because they are the best for the tasks at hand, 
but because they are so ubiquitous in the industry as to be 
unavoidable. I frequently encounter novice users who think that 
Microsoft Windows and a computer are the same thing, who believe 
that Internet Explorer *is* the internet, who don't realize that 
there are alternatives to Word, PowerPoint, or Access, let alone 
have ever tried these alternatives. The proposed settlement will do 
nothing to address this monopoly of the public mind; the average 
computer user will still see Windows, Internet Explorer, Office, and 
all the rest as a package that they have no choice but to accept.
    Many small companies have offered products that are superior to 
the equivalent Microsoft offerings. Most of these companies have 
been bought out or driven out of business by Microsoft's restrictive 
OEM licensing, deliberate introduction of ``bugs'' that 
only affect non-Microsoft software, and other unethical actions. The 
proposed settlement will not significantly redress these past 
wrongs. Many of the remaining competitors are fighting economic and 
even

[[Page 26391]]

legal battles for their continued existence-not because their 
products are inferior, but because Microsoft's pockets are deeper. 
The proposed settlement will not adequately level the playing field 
for these companies; indeed, depending on how some of the 
terminology of the settlement is interpreted, it may even end up 
endorsing the status quo.
    Most significantly, the proposed settlement fails to provide 
effective enforcement options and meaningful penalties to dissuade 
Microsoft from continuing its anti-competitive and unfair business 
practices in the future.
    I urge you to discard the proposed settlement, as it does not 
serve the public interest.
    -Liz Vogel
    U.S. Citizen



MTC-00017297

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am totally behind Microsoft. Get it out of the courts and quit 
wasting a bunch of tax-payers money.



MTC-00017298

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    please stop nonsense lawsuit let the company innovate to help 
our country (USA) and the consumers to be productive!!!



MTC-00017299

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My Opinion I believe it has been totally wrong in the first 
place of any of the States and or the U.S. Government to ever go 
after Microsoft in any way. Including trying to discredit Microsoft 
suggest fining them or breaking the company in half. How many 
millions of dollars has the U.S. Government spent of our tax money? 
I personally think it is American Politics at its best or worst. I 
have sent letters to the Attorney Generals about the U.S. Post 
Office of their price fixing and fraud. Our Government never 
acknowledges any Correspondence as if nothing is wrong.
    Sincerely
    Arch Lang



MTC-00017300

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe anytime trial lawyers are involved any suit against 
private parties it is to suck the private sector dry of money and 
give those monies to some tax and spenders in the Federal or State 
governments.



MTC-00017301

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Trial took way to long for a settlement such as this trial 
should have been thrown out long ago. While trial was in progress no 
issues was made of AOL purchase of Time Warner given them unlimited 
funds that'll topple Microsoft's. I pray and hope Microsoft make 
purchase of MGM studios.



MTC-00017302

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Very poor and 1-sided arguments put forth by this ATL group. 
Obviously analysis is not representative of the full spectrum of 
opinion on this matter. USA settled for too little!!



MTC-00017303

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement reached with Microsoft seems equitable. It is 
time to move on and allow free enterprise to continue to help our 
country grow.



MTC-00017304

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The action taken by the Justice Department against Microsoft 
should stand. Those who do not sign on to it should be not receive 
any further consideration. Microsoft made a generous offer which 
will benefit many children in our country who should not have had an 
opportunity to learn with the computers and soft-ware offered in the 
settlement. Lets move on and allow Microsoft to continue to innovate 
and broaden our minds through the products they invent and bring 
forward in the future.



MTC-00017305

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft ALONE!!!



MTC-00017306

From: Nick Bender
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement. Rather than 
detailing all the areas of disagreement in a this email, I have 
joined with others to co-sign the open letter at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    A far more effective set of remedies is proposed here: http://
www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html which contains the 
following main points:
    1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between software components, all communications 
protocols, and all file formats.
    2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the 
field of software.
    3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with 
Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications 
have been published, so that any programmer can implement software 
to support the same hardware.
    I am a free market supporter, but disagree with those that feel 
the free market can function without effective regulation.
    Regards,
    Nicholas Bender
    Norton, MA



MTC-00017307

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case. They are a great company and 
have made our lives much better and revolutionized how we do 
business.



MTC-00017308

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support settlement of the Microsoft case.



MTC-00017309

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly agree with the latest court decision in the Microsoft 
anti trust suit. I feel the free market is good for competition and 
that Government should not play a roll in this particular suit.



MTC-00017310

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is the attorneys general who are not playing fair. Giving 
software away isn't a bad thing. I do hate that you had to have IE 
installed to use other MS products though!



MTC-00017311

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After a very fair Microsoft settlement it is troubling to hear 
the continued vicious attacks by over zealous prosecutors jealous 
competitors and members of the house and senate. These are 
egotistical squabbling groups seeking more compensation and control 
of commerce. I have benefited from Microsoft Software I have found 
it to be very reasonable and most of all I like the way it minimizes 
compatibility problems leaving the developers the options to freely 
design other competitive applications consumers are looking for. 
Last Thursday Microsoft announced 4th earnings which included a 
charge of $660 million three quarters of a billion dollars or 8 
cents a share.
    Friday after reporting the stock fell another 4 points. Folks 
that is roughly 16 billion in market value 25 times the amount of

[[Page 26392]]

Microsoft's earning charge. This litigation has impacted every 
consumer directly or indirectly. Charities retirement funds and our 
struggling economy. It is disgusting and shameful to allow this 
money to go into the pockets of the greedy ruthless lawyers. Let the 
consumer sort it out unnecessary lawsuits against technology is 
choking innovation and the consumers are paying the higher costs of 
all goods.



MTC-00017312

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe there should be tougher sanctions against microsoft. 
controlling 92% of desktop software is too much for competitors and 
bad for product innovation.



MTC-00017313

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement reached in November 2001 between 
Microsoft and the DOJ is in the very best interests of all concerned 
parties: the public the government and Microsoft. I strongly urge 
the DOJ to terminate any further antitrust proceedings against 
Microsoft. At this time when the economy is in such a downswing it 
is folly to continue to agitate against a corporation that has given 
so much to the consumer and in which so many consumers have placed 
their trust by becoming shareholders. I am of the opinion that 
Microsoft will take those measures necessary to ensure that action 
of the type taken against it will not be repeated.



MTC-00017314

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is in the best interest of everybody. Its time 
the that the government get off the company back. Let them proceed 
and bring new technology forward.



MTC-00017315

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave microsoft alone to do their business. They did not break 
any anti-trust laws.



MTC-00017316

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement reached this past fall. I say it is 
time to quit wasting more (our we the people) money call a halt to 
any further prosecution or lawsuits and let the country get on with 
business.
    Harvey G. Burton



MTC-00017317

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I think it is about time that this law suite against Microsoft 
be left as settled. Let us get on with productive business.
    Sincerely yours



MTC-00017318

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the settlement is fair and just..........



MTC-00017319

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice needs to speedily resolve the case 
against Microsoft. This is an unreasonable taxpayer burden. In no 
way should Microsoft ever be forced to allow anyone to see the 
source code of any of their software programs. In fact all charges 
should be dropped. Microsoft and Mr. Bill Gates have done more for 
computing have made business productivity greater than it has ever 
been before and Microsoft should be allowed to continue unabated. 
The US Department of Justice needs to drop this case and all charges 
NOW! ps. I am not in any way associated with the Microsoft 
Corporation. I simply buy and use their products.



MTC-00017320

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement with the Fed Gov was just and should be completed 
with all the other States and settled once for all and have closure 
immediately



MTC-00017321

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is important that the internet remain unencumbered and free 
from oversight by those who would seek to legislate ahead of it's 
growth. As a person who has just begun to experience the effects of 
it's use I would hope that those who seek to control it would also 
seek to see it through to whatever wonders are as yet unknown.



MTC-00017322

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement doesn't mean DICK! Microsoft has learned nothing 
from it and they are using the same bullying tactics as 
always-witness their latest lawsuit against the makers of 
Windows in the name of preventing consumer confusion . They re still 
the same old uncaring monopoly and the settlement is just an old 
toothless dog that they will ignore.



MTC-00017323

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an entrepreneur developer of high tech systems I believe it 
is important to provide to our children immediately the tools to 
enable them to develop skills to equip them for their future. That 
we seem to be more concerned about whether the services offered in 
settlement bear the name Microsoft or Sun or Apple or Linux smacks 
of politics above the needs of children. Let's get the systems into 
the schools NOW! The fact that Windows is by the far the most 
dominant operating system in the world is a pretty clear indicator 
that children schooled in systems based on Windows will not exactly 
be trained in an outmoded or marginal system. Get with it!



MTC-00017324

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Whereas I generally feel that competition and commerce should be 
left alone and not influenced by governmental interference. I am one 
to go on record to say HELP in the battle against the monopolistic 
practices that Microsoft has implemented in it's quest to become THE 
computer software company.
    Many offenses are already catalogued and rehashed so no need to 
recount. MY concern here is to point the need for open source 
support as a basis for other products to be able to compete and yet 
integrate with Microsoft products. In the HARDWARE field standards 
allow multiple vendors to have a chance to produce components that 
interchangeably work in a computer. The ISSUE here should be the 
same open standards that give XYZ a chance to develop a better 
software component that can be interchanged with the Microsoft 
version. If I like Netscape then I should not need a tech degree to 
replace Internet Explorer with Netscape for a browser. I should be 
able to have options on the software application vendor even though 
we are GLAD that Microsoft did standardize Operating Systems with 
Windows products. No penalties to the computer vendors no pressure 
on me or others should prevent me from having choice enabled and 
allowed and that means open source access to code for developers and 
no exclusiveness of ALL Microsoft or NO software! Please push the 
accessibility for all developers and allowance for creative sources. 
Additionally whatever happens don't allow Microsoft to get off with 
simple payment to schools that allows more monopolizing practices to 
be launched on a new generation but rather require payment to 
CUSTOMERS wronged and the COMPANIES that have been harmed through 
the MICROSOFT practices!
    Thank you.



MTC-00017325

From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm am writing to express my outrage and disapproval of the 
Proposed Final Judgment

[[Page 26393]]

in United States v. Microsoft. While I find most of the remedies 
proposed in this settlement with out any value as a deterrent to 
Microsoft's anti-trust behavior, I am greatly concerned about 
provisions that not only don't act as a deterrent, but will help to 
enhance and encourage further anti-trust, anti-competitive behavior 
in the future.
    Specifically, Microsoft's right to appoint a member to the 
oversite board and that member's right to influence the selection of 
the third member. Where else would someone guilty of so many 
criminal acts be allowed to chose and pay(!) their judges and 
jailers! This ``oversite board'' has no responsibility to 
report their findings to the public, no resources, freedom of 
access, or motivation to fully investigate further anti-trust 
behavior, and no teeth to punish Microsoft if it happens to find 
that behavior. So, I have to conclude that the only function they 
will serve is to provide effective camouflage for continued and 
ongoing anti-trust and anti-competitive behavior on the Microsoft 
campus.
    I am also appalled by Microsoft's right to circumvent 
requirements to disclose API and interoperability information by 
claiming it discloses ``secret'' information or by 
claiming the group or individual requestion the information is a 
legitimate business. As an Open Software developer and advocate, 
Microsoft's stated belief that GPL licensed software is ``a 
cancer'' and that Open Source Software degrades 
``legitimate'' software development business, would leave 
any reasoning person to conclude that GNU/Linux developers would 
never qualify, in Microsoft's opinion, to receive API or 
interoperability information. Since Microsoft has publicly stated 
that GNU/Linux is a serious competitive threat to it's server 
business, this settlement provide a very effect method to attack and 
injure one more of it's competitors. As one of many, many 
programmers that depend on Open Source Software for their 
livelihood, I ask you to, please, not approve this settlement. Thank 
you for your time, respectfully,
    Chris Jackson
    www.91courtstreet.net
    Augusta, Maine



MTC-00017326

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hate to see Government State Local or Federal persicute 
private interprise.



MTC-00017327

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has shown over and over that it can get away with 
breaking the law and only getting a slap on the wrist. In addition 
to Browser and Word processor issues currently under consideration 
Windows 3.0 had special software to prevent Borland s C compiler 
from running. Breaking Microsoft into a Browser company an Operating 
System company and a Software company is the best way to see that 
Microsoft does not continue to violate the law. At least any future 
violation would be at the expense of other Microsoft companies in 
addition to the rest of the world. Microsoft loudly claims that 
breaking them up will result in higher prices to the consumer. One 
major software package has increased in price year after year under 
Microsoft s current monopoly-the Windows Operating System. 
Breaking up Microsoft would help see this trend reverse. Microsoft s 
predatory and illegal tactics WILL continue as long as the cost of 
such practices is less than the anticipated profit. In my opinion 
the current settlement continues this.
    People who currently defend Microsoft and oppose breaking up the 
company have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo at the 
expense of the consumer and other companies attempting to engage in 
fair competition. I hope someone at the state or federal level will 
agree that the rule of law and a fair playing field is more 
inportant than Microsoft s profits.



MTC-00017328

From: Eron Lloyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I, Eron Lloyd, an active and concerned U.S. citizen, request 
that the Department of Justice take more serious action in the 
settlement agreement against Microsoft corporation. Along with many 
others, which unfortunately will probably not make a stand and state 
their opinion, I feel that justice has NOT be served on the part of 
the people of this country. To me, the penalties (or lack thereof) 
imposed represent a mere ``wrist slap'', and only make it 
seem like the company CAN get away with more monopolistic practices 
and predatory business tactics, and in doing so remain above the law 
of the land.
    Furthermore, with the near future of some of their new 
strategies on the horizon, we'll see these actions become more 
abstracted from the public's viewpoint, so the ability to raise a 
red flag will be nearly impossible. I foresee wider control of the 
Internet access market through MSN, online service and identity 
entrenchment with Passport and .NET, Digital Rights Management 
exclusive powers through the preposterous patent on DRM for 
operating systems given to them by our very own USPTO, market-
cornering of consumer and media convergence technologies through X-
Box second generation and proprietary Windows Media 
implementations.They want a stronghold on every major market. I do 
NOT want my children growing up in a Microsoft-governing information 
society with a single corporation trying to become the thought 
police.
    I also dislike the fact that my government itself is almost 
completely reliant on Microsoft technology for its intellectual and 
business process property. I want to see more investment and support 
for open technologies and government contracts for companies 
developing DEMOCRATIC solutions using things such as Linux, standard 
networking protocols, and open hardware. On the state and local 
level I want to see Microsoft barred from competitive bidding, and 
contracts given to local technology solutions providers.
    I support the settlement recommendations presented at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html and stand firmly as a co-signer to 
these recommendations. I am angered by the fact that one of the 
penalties imposed is requiring Microsoft to pour more Microsoft 
products into our public education system. This does nothing but 
solidify their standing and give them another legitimate way of 
exposing and influencing the next generation of the consumer market. 
It does not teach children how to think for themselves. If you want 
real technological solutions for our schools, come to the 
communities that truly care, us, who have the future in mind.
    We are all counting on you, the DOJ, to serve swift and heavy-
handed justice for the good of the people, and we will hold you 
accountable for the final outcomes. You must represent us. Thank 
you.
    Eron Lloyd
    Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
    Technologist, Activist, Community Builder, Citizen
    [email protected]



MTC-00017329

From: Luke Brady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017329-0001

    Dear Judge,
    It is clear to me (a user of some MS products) that MS is 
violating antitrust laws. What upset me the most is how MS has put 
internet explorer on with it's operating sytem. I belive in the 
future MSN messenger will also be put on windows as well. This is 
destroying other companies'' chances of succes in the MS 
Monapolized world. Please re-evaluate the Proposed Final Judgement.
    Luke Brady
    14001 Old Peartree Rd.
    Huntsville AL 35803
    256-880-9046



MTC-00017329-0002



MTC-00017330

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would appreciate this matter of U.S. vs. Microsoft to be over! 
Microsoft has great products and the competitors don t like the idea 
that they can t compete so it would appear they want to drag this 
out as long as possible. Enough already and let s keep moving 
forward in technology. Those who choose to come along for the ride 
will do well! Thank you for listening! Nathan Myers



MTC-00017331

From: Justin Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that any of the proposed settlements with Microsoft 
will fail to solve the major roadblocks to innovation they

[[Page 26394]]

currently enjoy as a majority operating system vendor. They have 
used their position and raw money to halt competing products in 
their tracks. They have historically announced products which are 
never released, doing so to kill interest in any startup 
competitor's new idea that might eventually erode Microsoft's 
control. Microsoft uses highly anti-competitive licensing agreements 
with its software application developers which prevent the feasible 
release of most Windows application on any competing operating 
platform.
    There are an enormous number of further complaints I have about 
Microsoft and their practices, but others have said it better and 
more clearly, particularly Dan Kegel
     and David K. 
Every
    .
    Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinions and those 
of my fellow citizens. I am a computer programmer, and I sincerely 
believe that Microsoft's practices are what killed the economy. 
Hopefully we can prevent them from stifling any more great ideas.
    Justin Anderson Student/Programmer
    University of Massachusetts Amherst



MTC-00017332

From: Michael Schultheiss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
* operating systems
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows. Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows apps from running on 
competing operating systems. Microsoft's enterprise license 
agreements (used by large companies, state governments, and 
universities) charge by the number of computers which could run a 
Microsoft operating system-even for computers running 
competing operating systems such as Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs 
were once banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft Microsoft has in the past inserted 
intentional incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from 
running on competing operating systems.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs 
The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software. The PFJ allows Microsoft 
to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like 
sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This allows 
Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible operating 
systems to increase its market share in other areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Schultheiss
    CEO / CIO
    Amellus Enterprises, Ltd.



MTC-00017333

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    America became a great nation because individuals had the self 
motivation and encouragement to seek new frontiers not only in 
geography but in technology medicine science etc. It made its most 
substantial gains where there was an environment where government 
encouraged rather than discouraged discovery and the hope and 
expectations for future profits were not considered negatives.



MTC-00017334

From: Sam Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the settlement in its currently form and am of 
the opinion that the worst is yet to come. The following areas in 
particular concern me:
-blatant disregard for security
-lack of accountability for faulty software
-inflated prices of office suites, diagramming, project 
management and other desktop software
-lack of acceptance of existing standards (proprietary 
kerberos extensions for example)
-creation of new ``standards'' (C# programming 
language, VBscript as a client side scripting language)
-forced upgrades where not required
-subscription model pricing
-passport/.net security issues which are crucual given the 
sensitive data being held
-passport/.net anticompetitive behaviour
-increasing reliance on centralised microsoft services 
(passport, support, windowsupdate, etc.)
-instability on the internet (raw packets from XP, viruses, 
trojans)
-anticompetitive site design (barring access to popular sites 
like msn.com for non IE users)
-anticompetitive OEM agreements (all workstations bundled with 
windows without choice)
-interoperability problems (difficult to multiboot, integrate 
as deeply as IE, etc.)
-xbox and the related anticompetitive behaviour associated 
with it
I sincerely hope that a more appropriate remedy is found,
Sam Johnston



MTC-00017335

From: Colby Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement will not hender 
microsofts illegal ways. As someone that does not use microsoft 
products it is very hard for me to find ways to do things that most 
take for granted because of steps microsoft has taken to limit who 
can enter markets. One such example is watching DVD's. Another 
example is the fact

[[Page 26395]]

that now microsoft is attempting to take over the set top box market 
along with the game console market -AND- the embeded OS 
market. Left unchecked we could end up living in a world were 
everything depends on Microsoft to provide for us. Allow me to 
provide some examples:
    I am taking for granted that the readers of this have all used 
Microsoft Operating Systems such as Windows 2000, XP, and the like. 
Also Im guessing that you have all had times when that operating 
system crashes for no reason what so ever. With that in mind lets 
look at a possable reality when microsoft has taken over the embeded 
market and most/all devices require a Microsoft Windows XP Embeded 
OS to run (such as the computers that control reactors and the like)
    Now lets assume that someone you love is involved in a car crash 
or something else and must be put on life support. All of the 
equipment used to keep your loved one alive relies on embeded tech. 
to work and because microsoft has killed all compatition in that 
market your loved ones life now relies on the fact that that 
microsoft product will not crash for some unknown reason. This 
scares me. it really does. Lets look at another example, Microsoft 
is currently pushing its .Net project to be -THE- 
company to goto when you need to establish an online ID such as what 
is used to identify you to your bank for online banking and to buy 
things online. After _ALL_ of the security problems 
microsoft has had would you really want to trust all of your 
personal information to a system that the same people came up with? 
I dont. When you consider this settlement please keep in mind that 
for all the good (and I use the term loosly) that microsoft has done 
they have done much worse for the world. (Did you know that there 
was a time when computers did not crash many times a day?)
    Colby Rice
    1267 Hudgins
    Grapevine Tx 76051
    Network Security Engineer



MTC-00017336

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I totally support the settlement agreement made by Microsoft. I 
belive Microsoft is a great American company that has acted 
responsibly in an ever changing and highly conpetitive field. 
Further fines and punishment would NOT be in the best interest of 
the American economy or the American free enterprise system. Enough 
is enough. Let Microsoft continue to create great ideas for America 
and the world.



MTC-00017337

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is in response to the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case.
    I believe the settlement falls fall short of being an effective 
remedy for Microsoft's past misdeeds and does little to prevent 
further misdeeds in the future. By stifling in the marketplace at 
large the innovation that they claim to champion, Microsoft has 
silenced any effective attempts to compete. This is a classic case 
of monopolistic behavior-not unlike that of Standard Oil, for 
whom the Sherman Act was written-and has got to be stopped.
    The settlement needs more teeth:
    1. There needs to be a stiff penalty for past misdeeds.
    2. There needs to be a structural remedy that insures against 
future misdeeds. Microsoft has already demonstrated that it can't 
abide by behavioral remedies. Why should we assume they will in the 
future? The computer and software marketplace has become a much 
poorer place since Microsoft's ascendency to monopoly status. A more 
effective remedy in this case could only help to reinvigorate the 
wasteland left in their wake.
    Thank you.
    Respectfully yours,
    Philip C. Pilgrim
    President Bueno Systems, Inc.



MTC-00017338

From: Zerafa, Doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Here is my opinion of the Settlement, The settlement as it is 
written now rewards Microsoft for its illegal practices as the 
settlement will allow Microsoft to crush the open source movement 
and for profit competition. The following below are excerpts from 
others letters about this case. I wholeheartedly agree with the 
content of the following statments and present them as my own 
opinion : Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language 
against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it 
need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications 
Protocols affecting authentication and authorization to companies 
that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) 
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'' This section should be reworded as ``...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by the government (or 
other as yet defined independent body) for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business'' The agreement 
provides Microsoft with a rich set of strategies to undermine the 
development of free software, which depends upon the free sharing of 
technical information with the general public, taking advantage of 
the collective intelligence of users of software, who share ideas on 
improvements in the code. If Microsoft can tightly control access to 
technical information under a court approved plan, or charge fees, 
and use its monopoly power over the client space to migrate users to 
proprietary interfaces, it will harm the development of key 
alternatives, and lead to a less contestable and less competitive 
platform, with more consumer lock-in, and more consumer harm, as 
Microsoft continues to hike up its prices for its monopoly products.
    Other comments : 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. I 
personally believe that PC Manufacturers should allow customers to 
choose which non operating system components to install when 
purchasing a new PC, much like when you purchase a new car. I would 
like the choice of having pre-installed either Windows or Linux, 
Windows Media Player or Real Player or some other media player, 
Internet Explorer, Netscape, and / or Opera as my internet browser, 
AOL or MSN or other as my internet service provider. PC 
Manufacturers have the choice as to which of these packages they 
offer to consumers pre-installed at what price. 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. Microsoft 
should also be forced to divest its holdings in Apple. This 
investment effectively means that Microsoft not only controls the 
90% + of the PC market but the remaining market of Apple computer 
users.
    Failure to address Ill Gotten Gains
    Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything 
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an 
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is hardly a first time 
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct, choosing 
instead to repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers 
of the government and members of the judiciary. Microsoft has 
profited richly from the maintenance of its monopoly. On September 
30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short-term investments of 
$36.2 billion, up from $31.6 billion the previous quarter-an 
accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per month. It is astounding 
that Microsoft would face only a ``sin no more'' edict 
from a court, after its long and tortured history of evasion of 
antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary embrace of 
anticompetitive practices-practices recognized as illegal by 
all members of the DC Circuit court. The court has a wide range of 
options that would address the most egregious of Microsoft's past 
misdeeds. For example, even if the court decided to forgo the break-
up of the Windows and Office parts of the company, it could require 
more targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of its browser 
technology and media player

[[Page 26396]]

technologies, denying Microsoft the fruits of its illegal conduct, 
and it could require affirmative support for rival middleware 
products that it illegally acted to sabotage. Instead the proposed 
order permits Microsoft to consolidate the benefits from past 
misdeeds, while preparing for a weak oversight body tasked with 
monitoring future misdeeds only. What kind of a signal does this 
send to the public and to other large corporate law breakers? That 
economic crimes pay! Please consider these and other criticisms of 
the settlement proposal, and avoid if possible yet another weak 
ending to a Microsoft antitrust case. Better to send this 
unchastened monopoly juggernaut a sterner message.
    Thank You
    Doug Zerafa



MTC-00017339

From: Anthony Coleman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00017339-0001

    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It does not limit or 
punish microsoft enought for what it did.
    They are guilty.
    They should be punished!!



MTC-00017340

From: Fritz Geier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft case does not 
contribute to the expansion of options or alternatives to the 
Microsoft operting system or range of productivity software. The 
settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist; there needs to be a more 
suitable settlement that encourages and protects the development of 
non-Microsoft software solutions. Witness the proliferation of 
viruses and worms that affect only MS systems. As a user of both 
Intel and Macintosh systems, I can assure you that the Mac side of 
the computing world is far less affected by the proliferation of 
such security problems. The promotion of Miscrosoft's operating 
system and other software through minimal penalties only encourages 
such corporate behavior further and serves to discourage other 
superior software (witness Be OS) development. Please reconsider the 
implementation of the proposed settlement terms.
    Respectfully,
    Fritz Geier



MTC-00017341

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough! You have more controls to insure the settlement is 
enforced than is sane now. The foes of Microsoft wish to disband the 
company why are you so intent in helping them? Enough I say! Settle 
for the current settlement and let the computer industry go on.



MTC-00017342

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the the current settlement is more than sufficient and 
should be accepted by the Federal and State governments.



MTC-00017343

From: Brian Schwarz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future in 
any significant way.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Schwarz
    The opinions expressed here are may expressed here are my own, 
and do not reflect those of my employers-past, present, or 
future.



MTC-00017344

From: Burnett, Mark Michael (UMKC-Student)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the proposed settlement of Microsoft's illegal 
business practices:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    I have read stories (which I believe) indicating that Microsoft 
is actually calling their customers telling them to submit comments 
on the settlement in favor of Microsoft during the Tunney Act 
comment period. Microsoft claims that the trial itself is the real 
cause of strain on the economy and that supporting Microsoft for a 
quick, unrestricted settlement is the best way out.
    This is absurd. Microsoft is merely using its unprecedented 
marketing (read monopolistic) power to try and win this uphill legal 
battle. Because of this propaganda, the people are not being fairly 
represented- no one is calling Microsoft clients and telling 
them the other side of the story. That's simply too expensive.
    This propaganda of Microsoft's may gain them popularity, but 
what's popular is not always what's right. I argue that this abuse 
of their resources to further their legal position shows us 
unequivocally that Microsoft will continue to abuse their position 
in the market after this settlement is finalized.
    Mark Burnett
    1024 NE Hunter's Ridge
    Lee's Summit, MO 64086



MTC-00017345

From: Bob Hardy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear officials of the court:
    I think that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case is 
slanted in favor of Microsoft. It permits them to continue doing 
many of the same anti-competetive things they've done for many 
years. This is more specifically outlined in the following document: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html It seems that there's far 
more in the settlement that's favorable to Microsoft's continuing 
monopoly and anti-competetive tactics than there is to the entire 
remaining software development world-and that is bitterly 
wrong. Microsoft should not be crushed out of existence, but they 
should have to live in the same world as everyone else in their 
business, which has not been the case for far too long.
    Thanks for your attention!



MTC-00017346

From: David Caldwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I think the proposed Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. I 
believe much harsher restrictions need to be applied to Microsoft. 
Please reconsider.
    David Caldwell



MTC-00017347

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It amounts 
to a slap on the wrist and allows Microsoft to continue with 
business as usual. Let us do the right thing and let the punishment 
suit the crime.
    Regards,
    Don Dawson
    Systems Administrator,
    DAXCON Engineering, Inc.
    5607 S Washington St.
    Bartonville, IL 61607
    email: [email protected]
    http://www.daxcon.com
    Phone-309-697-5975
    Fax-309-697-5976



MTC-00017348

From: Ryan Leigland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement (Civil Action No. 
98-1232 (TPJ)) is flawed because it grants no rights to open 
source software, which is generally acknowledged to be the main 
competitor to Microsoft. Any proposal that does not give those 
rights is destined to fail.



MTC-00017349

From: R
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. I do 
not think it achieves the goal of preventing Microsoft from stifling 
competition. Competition leads to better

[[Page 26397]]

products, more choices, and cheaper prices for goods.
    Several areas not well covered by the agreement in my opinion 
include: Incompatibilities that have been documented as introduced 
by Microsoft into their products to crush competition and limit 
consumer choice. And penalties Microsoft has levied on sites that 
choose to run non-Microsoft operating systems in their environment.
    Thank you.
    Robert Danford
    109 Abertdeen Ct
    Carrboro, NC 27510



MTC-00017350

From: George Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I feel that the settlement is weak and full of 
holes that Microsoft has already begun to take advantage of. 
Microsoft should not be permitted to migrate their dominance on the 
desktop to control of the internet.
    The current settlement allows Microsoft to determine standards 
and gives Microsoft veto power over the areas of interoperability, 
middleware development, and the Open Source environment.
    Giving one corporation, that has already been found guilty of 
monopolistic practices, control of the entire computing universe is 
the antithesis of what you should be trying to accomplish.
    George Tucker



MTC-00017351

From: Bruce Mohler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    While I heartily approve of what you are doing in many, many 
areas (especially in your participation in the war on terrorism), I 
believe that the proposed ``settlement'' with Microsoft is 
a bad idea.
    While the Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft has a 
monopoly on Intel-compatible PC operating systems and while the 
Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act 
for illegally maintaining its monopoly by imposing licensing 
restrictions on OEMs and others, by requiring ISVs to switch to 
Microsoft's JVM (Java Virtual Machine), by deceiving Java 
developers, and by forcing Intel to drop support for cross-platform 
Java tools, there is essentially no penalty being placed on 
Microsoft for this behavior. Please, please review the penalty and 
do something to free our computer industry from the unrestrained 
influence of Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Bruce Mohler
    Software guy...Of course my password is the same as my pet's 
name. My dog's name is rit5%ang, but I change it every 90 days.



MTC-00017352

From: Morgan Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the pending 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement.
    I am not learned in law, but I am opposed to the settlement 
proposed by the Department of Justice for several reasons:
    1. First and most important-Microsoft's past actions have 
shown them not to be trustworthy. As I understand it, this case came 
about because they found a loophole in the earlier judgement and did 
violence to the spirit of it while barely following the letter. 
Common sense tells me that one cannot reasonably assume that their 
corporate culture will change in a very short time.
    2. Microsoft's present behaviour shows that they are still 
attempting to leverage their monopoly into more and more areas.
    3. Even I, a total novice in points of law, can see several 
glaring loopholes in the proposed settlement. For example, by 
declaring certain interfaces as sensitive to security breaches, it 
may be possible to totally disable programs such as 
``samba'' that allow non-Microsoft software to 
interoperate with Microsoft software.
    I would suggest that some sort of relief be crafted that would 
accomplish the following:
    1. Ensure that non-Microsoft software could operate easily and 
fully (all functions work!) with Microsoft software.
    2. All Microsoft file formats be fully documented and open. Thus 
other applications could be crafted to seamlessly interoperate with 
Microsoft products.
    3. Establish some form of interoperability oversight body that 
has real teeth. A body consisting of at least five experts in the 
art of programming, which Microsoft has no voice beyond a single 
non-voting representative. Independent developers could take 
problems with Microsoft interoperability, documentation of 
interoperability, file formats, and documentation of file formats to 
this board. The board should have the authority, should Microsoft be 
recalcitrant, to stop shipments and sequester all income until the 
problem is resolved.
    4. Establish that whatever prices Microsoft charges for software 
will be applied uniformly (with volume discounts as appropriate). 
This should include such things as co-operative advertising and 
other forms of non-cash renumeration to VAR's and retailers. Should 
a VAR (for example) be ``punished'' by Microsoft for using 
or reselling non-Microsoft products, the person or business should 
be entitled to at least triple damages.
    I feel that unless there is a real, strong, incentive to comply, 
Microsoft will continue acting barely within their interpretation of 
the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of it, as well as 
ignoring any sembalance of ethical behaviour.
    Thank you again, for this opportunity to comment.
    Morgan Hall



MTC-00017353

From: Braz Brandt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Looking at my calendar, I took notice of today's date and the 
rapidly approaching end to the period alloted for public comments 
regarding the Proposed Final Judgement against Microsoft as 
negotiated by Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Realizing 
that I have not yet taken the time to respond to the Proposed 
Settlement, I feel compelled to do so now, before the period alloted 
expires.
    I want to express my extreme displeasure with the Proposed Final 
Judgement, and stress to all parties involved with the review of the 
Proposed Final Judgement that this settlement, as currently written, 
does little to address the issues raised by Judge Jackson and 
further upheld during appeal. Indeed, the settlement can be seen as 
ineffectual, given the tendencies of Microsoft to frequently 
redefine and at times even ignore the directives of the Department 
of Justice and established US Laws.
    Unlike many people in my line of work, I will not take the time 
to raise the issues that fall outside the scope of both the 
Department of Justice's case against Microsoft. Instead, I would 
like to focus on what I feel is the primary problem with the 
settlement, and highlight this problem as just one of several.
    The Court of Appeals upheld Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact, 
which stated that Microsoft holds a monopoly in operating system 
software, and additionally, that Microsoft has used that monopoly 
power to stifle competition and even destroy competitors. Further, 
Microsoft was found to have used its tight control over the 
operating systems ``APIs'' to prevent competition with its 
own products, by creating an artifically high barrier for would-be 
competitors to overcome.
    To that end, the Proposed Final Judgement should remedy this 
situation. Specifically, my concerns are regarding the imposed 
publication of Microsoft APIs. If defined and implemented properly, 
this action would have a significant effect not only on middleware 
vendors, but also on operating system developers; said developers 
could use those APIs to provide the underlying functionality of 
Windows without the currently-necessary reverse-engineering required 
to extract and implement these standards. As it currently stands, an 
operating systems developer must spend quite a large amount of time 
examining, studying and interpreting the API calls any application 
makes to the Windows family of operating systems. Once this is done, 
the developer can then implement and design replacement operating 
system services, so that these applications can run as seamlessly as 
possible on new, ``Windows-compatible'' operating systems. 
Obviously, the development of Windows-compatible operating systems 
would be detrimental to Microsoft's sales and market-share. To 
prevent the growth of such alternatives to Windows, Microsoft has 
refused to publish their Windows APIs to the public, and has taken 
great pains to make the reverse-engineering of those APIs a 
difficult task. Microsoft routinely and with great care makes 
changes to the Windows APIs, and

[[Page 26398]]

then releases products that take advantage of these new, unpublished 
APIs. Therefore, any development efforts invested in deciphering 
Windows API calls are rendered useless with each new version of 
Windows.
    To remedy this situation, the Department of Justice has 
attempted to force Microsoft to open their APIs to developers. 
However, while the gesture is one that is welcome, its 
implementation leaves much to be desired. First, the proposed 
settlement narrowly defines APIs as the interfaces between Microsoft 
Middleware Products and Microsoft Windows Operating System Products. 
Furthermore, the settlement then further narrows the scope of 
``Middleware Products'' to be a subset of existing 
Microsoft technologies- Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and 
Windows Media Player, for example- and ``Windows 
Operating System'' as Windows 2000, Windows XP and their 
successors.
    If Microsoft didn't have a history of both creating/purchasing 
new operating systems technologies and also shifting focus away from 
current operating systems in favor of other technologies, these 
definitions might only be considered questionably narrow in scope. 
However, as Microsoft has shown in the past, it is more than willing 
to shift, redefine and create and/or purchase new technologies in 
order to reinforce its monopoly powers. The Department of Justice 
has ignored Microsoft's growning incroachment into the handheld and 
newly-emerging tablet PC markets, where Microsoft promotes and 
develops Windows CE and Windows XP for Tablet-PCs, respectively. The 
Proposed Final Judgement, with its narrow definition of 
``Windows Operating System'', leaves Microsoft free to 
both continue its illegal and predatory business practices in the 
handheld computer market, but also to, at some future date, shift 
its operating system focus away from ``Windows 2000, Windows XP 
Home, Windows XP Professional and their successors'' to Windows 
CE, Windows XP Tablet-PC Edition or some third, as-of-yet 
undeveloped technology. Doing so would eliminate any legal 
requirements Microsoft would have to follow the terms of the 
proposed settlement. Additionally, with its narrow definition of 
``Microsoft Middleware Products'', Microsoft isn't 
prevented from adopting new, emergining technologies-as it did 
with Internet Explorer-and incorporating them into the 
``operating system'' to avoid the Middleware label. 
Furthermore, Microsoft could simply redefine these portions of 
Microsoft Middleware as essential parts of the operating system, and 
thereby refuse to publish any future APIs.
    While I'm confident that the Department of Justice is interested 
in enforcing the Sherman Act and the Findings of Fact of the US 
District and Appeals Courts, the Proposed Final Judgement as 
currently written accomplishes neither of those goals. I hope that 
my brief overview of just one of the many problems with the proposed 
settlement brings to light the issues involved in dealing with 
Microsoft, a company with a history of ignoring law and judicial 
decree where they prove inconvenient. I also hope that the tide of 
company-sponsored statements, both for and against the proposed 
settlement, do not drown out the concerns of consumers and computer 
professionals like myself.
    I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my 
comments. I look forward to any opportunity to discuss my comments 
further, and welcome each and every opportunity to provide input 
into the fair and equitable settlement of the Department of 
Justice's case against Microsoft.
    Braswell Brandt, MCSE
    Network Engineer
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,[email protected]...



MTC-00017354

From: Edan Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is a Bad Thing. Do not sell out the 
work of so many people in bringing Microsoft to justice by bending 
over bakcwards to give them a light punishment.
    Edan Dalton



MTC-00017355

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement, in my opinion, is woefully inadequate, 
and should be rejected.
    As a computer professional for over 15 years, I have seen 
repeated examples of Microsoft using its clout (monopoly influence) 
in inappropriate, anticompetitive ways. This is what the court's 
findings of fact support. The sanctions offered in the proposed 
settlement may actually encourage companies to engage in these types 
of practices-because even when litigation is lost, the 
remedies will remain inconsequential and easy to circumvent-at 
least in the high-tech field.
    I trust that this proposed settlement does not become an example 
of the protection from monopoly abuse we are to witness from the 
current judiciary. Thank you for considering my opinion,
    Victor J. Berzins
    76 Old Webster Rd.
    Oxford, Ma. 01540



MTC-00017356

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft Anti Trust Trial
Date: 1/23/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    Section III(J)(2) specifies that Microsoft need not describe nor 
license its API to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as 
a business-which can be interpreted as including open source 
projects.
    The proposed final judgement also fails to address the concern 
that Microsoft may introduce intentional incompatibilities (as it 
has done in the past) into its applications that will make it 
difficult (or impossible) for users on non-Windows platforms to run 
the software. I also encourage you to examine several other serious 
issues raised in the analysis at: 
    Sincerely,
    Rahul Sukthankar
    Cambridge, MA
    CC:Rahul Sukthankar



MTC-00017357

From: Russell Edward Dekema
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I would like to say that I am not in favor of the current 
proposed final judgment in this case. I feel that it does not go 
nearly far enough in preventing future anticompetitive acts by 
Microsoft, and many of the definitions contained within it are 
either too vague or incorrect. Insofar as you take public opinion 
into consideration on these matters, please count this as a 
``vote'' (so to speak) against the current proposed 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Russell Dekema
    1200 E. Ann #4227
    Ann Arbor MI 48109



MTC-00017358

From: Kevin Ruddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement. One of the biggest 
failures in the settlement is that file formats remain undocumented. 
It is extraordinarily difficult to reverse engineer a file format to 
be compatible with Microsoft's constantly-shifting Office suite, for 
example. In order to foster interoperability between Microsoft and 
its competition, and to create new competition, these file formats 
must be available to all.
    There are many additional shortcomings, and I hope the 
Department of Justice makes a more serious and significant attempt 
to curtail Microsoft's monopoly and open the software industry to 
additional competition, which will help the United States in 
countless ways. It is poorly served by Microsoft's monopoly as it 
stands today.
    Kevin Ruddy
    42 Pantry Rd
    Sudbury, MA 01776



MTC-00017359

From: Geoffrey Sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the current Microsoft/DOJ Settlement. This 
problem should be revisitied as the current settlement is not 
satisfactory.
    G. Sanders
    San Diego, CA 92129



MTC-00017360

From: Eric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1 Microsoft has spent many years eliminating the competition 
through underhanded tactics. They started the BSA,

[[Page 26399]]

an orginization that publicly fights piracy through Federal Marshal-
assisted raids and has a tendency to force businesses to convert to 
Microsoft software through thunder and bluster. Splitting up is too 
good for them.



MTC-00017361

From: wleddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to 
Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even 
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret 
APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to 
replace Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it 
defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next 
version of Windows might not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertised as being ``Windows Powered''. The PFJ fails to 
require advance notice of technical requirements, allowing Microsoft 
to bypass all competing middleware simply by changing the 
requirements shortly before the deadline, and not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anti-competitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on Windows. 
Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows 
apps from running on competing operating systems. Microsoft's 
enterprise license agreements (used by large companies, state 
governments, and universities) charge by the number of computers 
which could run a Microsoft operating system-even for 
computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft Microsoft has in the past inserted 
intentional incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from 
running on competing operating systems.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anti-competitive Practices Towards 
OEMs The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anti-competitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    In summary:
    The PFJ (a) does not punish Microsoft for crimes committed, (b) 
does not provide for restitution for its criminal actions (c) does 
not restrict Microsoft from continuing established criminal 
behavior, (d) does not restrict Microsoft from future criminal 
behavior, (e) ignores Microsoft's disregard for earlier consent 
decrees and its demonstrated contempt of the legal process as 
demonstrated by its flagrant misbehavior in court, (f) greatly 
impedes and restricts the efforts of competing systems, especially 
non-commercial competitors collectively referred to as ``Open 
Source''.
    It amazes me that these criminals even have a say in their 
punishment, I can't recall any other crime where the criminals can 
negotiate their punishment. The PFJ is a travesty of justice.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Leddy
    Director, Information Services
    St. Stephen's & St. Agnes School
    400 Fontaine St.
    Alexandria, VA 22302
    [email protected]
    (703) 212-2732 (v)
    (703) 683-5930 (f)

MTC-00017362

From: Harold L. Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the settlement. I am a network administrator. I deal 
with Microsoft's anti competitive practices everyday. Viruses, 
rebooting, crashing, reinstalling, corruption of standards 
(kerberos), software pricing, strongarm tactics, lack of security 
and much more. Justice must be served.
    Harold L. Brooks
    Network Administrator
    Telecom solutions for a global marketplace. TM
    Scitec, Inc.
    1212 E. University Ave.
    Urbana, IL 61802 USA
    Telephone 217-384-6041, Fax 217-384-6501
    Pager 217-261-0118
    [email protected]
    www.scitecinc.com



MTC-00017363

From: HolliePeter KounalisGiles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00017363_0001

    Dear DOJ representative,
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. 
Microsoft deserves more than this mere slap on the wrist. I strongly 
agree with the criticisms of this settlement voiced here: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Sincerely,
    Peter Giles



MTC-00017364

From: Matt Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement falls short in 
many ways, in its goal to remedy Microsoft's monopoly position. 
There are many loop-holes Microsoft can use (as it surely will, 
given its history of outright law-breaking) to continue its 
exclusionary and predatory business practices. For an excellent 
document describing many of the problems in detail, please see Dan 
Kegel's comments at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. I 
whole-heartedly agree with his sentiments as stated in that 
document. The proposed settlement does not force Microsoft to 
release its stranglehold-it merely forces it in some cases to 
use loopholes, and leaves many problems untouched. I believe that 
unless a much stronger solution is put in place, Microsoft will 
continue to hold its monopoly and the technical industry will 
continue to suffer. There will be no forward progress in

[[Page 26400]]

the computing industry as long as a there is a giant to stomp out 
every flame of innovation that does not line its pocketbook in some 
way.
    Matt Curtis,
    American Fork, Utah
    Software Engineer at Clearstone Corporation, Lindon, Utah



MTC-00017365

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to indicate that I, as a US citizen and experienced 
software developer, object to the currently proposed final judgment 
in the United States vs. Microsoft case. My biggest objection is the 
lack of a requirement for clearly and publicly documented file 
formats. The use of undocumented file formats results in users, 
typically without their knowledge, being locked into using Microsoft 
or Microsoft approved software for accessing and sharing their data.
    I have made the personal choice to not use Microsoft products. 
This has resulted in a significant amount of difficulty when I try 
to access information that other send me or to produce information 
that others can easily use. It causes even bigger problems when I 
try to access information that no one is actively maintaining and 
yet is in essence encrypted by Microsoft without the explicit 
permission of the owner of that data.
    Requiring that all file formats be publically documented would 
significantly improve the ability for other products to compete 
effectively in the areas that Microsoft has been judged to engage in 
monopolistic practices.
    Sincerely,
    Nathan Wilson
    1037 N. Rose St.
    Burbank, CA 91505
    [email protected]



MTC-00017366

From: Ken Kimball
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    In regards the currently proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
anti-trust case:
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is completely inadequate in my 
opinion. As the Director of MIS of a small ($10 million) company, I 
deal with Microsoft and their business tactics each and every day. 
If there was any reasonable way that we could purchase and use 
competing products, we would. However, Microsoft has basically 
crushed any company and/or product that would make that possible. 
The currently proposed settlement would ultimately do nothing to 
alleviate this problem; therefore, Microsoft will not loose any of 
its monopoly power.
    Please spend my and my colleague's tax money wisely and offer a 
settlement that alleviates the problem.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Kimball [[email protected]]
    Director of MIS
    Moss Inc [http://www.mossinc.com]



MTC-00017367

From: Michael Broggy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have been using home computers for nearly 20 years, now, and 
have been increasingly frustrated as a consumer over the past decade 
or so whenever the idea of purchasing a new computer came up. Every 
system sold seems to come with a requisite ``Microsoft 
tax'' in the form of a bundled copy of Windows which I cannot 
refuse or get a refund for, which is extremely unfair as I never 
would choose to use Windows myself. Only by building my own systems 
from individual components can I get around this extra cost, but 
that often results in a more expensive system when all is said and 
done, as I don't benefit from volume discounts on computer 
components.
    I haven't had the time to look into the nuances of the 
settlement, but I do agree with the essay written by Dan Kegel, 
found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html-I have 
signed his petition and wanted to add my own opinion to the case, as 
I think capitalism is all well and good but there *are* rules and 
Microsoft has consistently sought to put itself on top by hook or by 
crook. Competition is *necessary* for progress and 
innovation-without it, Microsoft will seek to bleed their 
customers for as much money as possible without adding anything in 
the way of improvements with each successive version of their 
software.
    If I were to break the law, I know I'd be punished-it 
seems unfair that any company or corporation can escape justice for 
*any* reason. They must be punished; they should be punished in such 
a way that they'd regret breaking the law in the first place and 
actions should be taken to ensure they could not do the same again.
    Thank you for your time and attention,
    Michael Broggy
    Michael M. L. Broggy
    System Analyst
    Output Systems
    The New York Times
    212-556-8383



MTC-00017368

From: Gary Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
1110 Reynolds Blvd
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The Proposed Final Judgement in the Microsoft Antitrust case is 
flawed in several ways. I will address one flaw that affects me 
personally. Sections III D and III E are good sections in that force 
Microsoft to allow competing software developers equal access to 
information reguarding system API's and communication protocols. 
However, I feel that these sections should go farther than they do 
in two ways.
    First, file formats should be included. Microsoft has a history 
of using incompatible file formats for coerse users of Microsoft 
software to upgrade to newer versions. This same tactic same tactic 
can be used against competing software packages that attempt to 
interoperate with Microsoft products. Second, the only entities 
entitled to access the information made available by sections III D 
and III E are ``ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's and OEM's''. 
Granted that the definition provide for ISV is fairly broad (anyone 
involved in software development), the Final Judgement should make 
this information availble to the general public. As it stands, PFJ 
excludes private citizens who do not get paid to work in the 
software development field. As an owner of a Microsoft Operating 
System, I would like to be able to create software for my own 
personal use that will interact with my system correctly.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my comments, and for your 
consideration is
    this matter.
    Gary Myers



MTC-00017369

From: Dan Devine
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    My name is Dan Devine and I would like to voice my 
dissatisfaction with the current Microsoft settlement agreement 
between the United States of America and the Microsoft Corporation.
    I believe that this settlement is lacking in the following ways:
    A) It does not go far enough in preventing further illegal 
conduct and provides ample legal loopholes for them to continue past 
business practices under the guise of a settlement.
    B) It allows Microsoft to benefit from past illegal practices 
both monetarily and through market position. Under the 
``Findings of Fact,'' it has been determined that 
Microsoft is a monopoly and that they have improperly used their 
power to maintain and expand that monopoly. The proposed settlement 
does not provide a concrete remedy to this situation and therefore 
is ``not in the public interest.'' After viewing the 
proposed settlement, I was struck by the number of legal loopholes 
written into it. For each proposed requirement, there were options 
that Microsoft could use to continue thwart competition. These 
loopholes are unacceptable in light of Microsoft's past business 
practices, and would allow them to prevent competition in the 
future.
    It is my belief that competition can be restored to the 
marketplace without unfairly harming/damaging Microsoft and without 
breaking the company into two or more smaller companies. I further 
believe that the alternative settlement offered by the state of 
California and others, is more in the public interest.

[[Page 26401]]

    I further believe that the operating system (the software which 
governs the operation of electronic hardware) should either be 
``open sourced'' for public view or be considered a 
``Public Utility,'' and be regulated as such. This belief 
is not taken lightly, and I would only consider it given that 
Microsoft controls 90% of computer operating systems. As an analogy, 
imagine what would happen if the ``interface'' for 
consumer and industrial electricity was controlled by private a 
corporation with legal protection on it's specifications. Such a 
corporation could modify the specifications of it's power at will, 
making competing products incompatible according to business 
interests. Under the ``public utility'' analogy, 
specifications on the voltage and frequency are public thereby 
allowing competing firms to make safe and compatible consumer 
devices which benefit us all. Microsoft has been shown to create 
deliberate roadblocks to competition through ``incompatible 
file formats'' and ``degradation'' of file quality on 
competing products. The ability of one corporation to determine the 
direction of desktop computing has ominous implications, and should 
be curbed through government oversight.
    As a conclusion, I hope that the proposed settlement is rejected 
as not being in the public interest.
    Thank you for your time,
    Dan Devine
    4033 29th Ave. W
    Seattle, WA 98199
    (206)282-1958



MTC-00017370

From: Michael McHenry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to express my dismay at the proposed settlement 
which I believe will do little to curb the negative impact that 
Microsoft's monopoly has had on the computer software industry. I 
find the proposed remedies weak, and with little prospect of strong 
enforcement. Microsoft should be required to release all information 
regarding its file formats, should be required to have uniform terms 
for all OEMs not just the 20 largest, and its restrictive licensing 
which keeps Microsoft products from running on competing operating 
systems should be eliminated.
    Sincerely,
    -mike mchenry
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017371

From: Robert Witcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a giveaway to Microsoft. I do not 
believe in this settlement.
    Robert Witcher
    Dovebid Computer Group
    505-471-5211



MTC-00017372

From: John Berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement is bad for the country and for consumers. 
I have worked as a computer engineer for over twenty years, and have 
made my living servicing Microsoft products. Microsoft has abused 
their monopoly position, has violated previous court orders, and has 
falsified evidence. There is not sufficient oversight in the current 
agreement, nor is there sufficient remedy. The company should be 
split.
    John Berger
    6441 Balcom Ave
    Reseda, CA



MTC-00017373

From: Scott Sesher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Rather than go into the painful detail on every point where this 
proposed settlement falls short of protecting U.S. citizens from 
Microsoft's monopoly, I will instead focus on the one thing 
strangely absent from the proposed settlement.
    Microsoft has been found to have abused it's monopoly power, 
hurting consumers, other businesses and open source developers. Yet 
there seems to be no real punitive measure in this proposed 
settlement. If I were to have been found guilty of a crime I would 
not expect the judge at sentencing to say only ``Don't do it 
again, we will be watching you.'' (Though in Microsoft's case 
this seems to be ``Don't do it again, you will be paying people 
to watch you, who can't say whether your naughty or nice). I would 
expect some punitive action. That seems to be missing here. 
Microsoft has made billions by exploiting its monopoly position and 
this proposed settlement seems to have no problem with them keeping 
it. Most bank robbers don't get to keep their loot, why should 
monopolist? Without the addition of some substantive punitive 
action, this proposed settlement rewards Microsoft's previous 
misdeeds.
    Let me just add one thing further. Not to long ago the Justice 
Department seemed to have Microsoft on its knees, from the terms of 
this proposed settlement things seem to be the other way round now. 
Any speculation as to how this could come about in such a short 
time, and whether any laws were broken, is left to the reader as an 
exercise.
    Thanks you for your time and consideration,
    Scott Sesher
    703 S. Sunset Lane
    Raymore MO 64083



MTC-00017374

From: Jonathan Rippy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Per The Tunney Act I am emailing my comments on the Microsoft 
Settlement.
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It is totally and 
completely a pro Microsoft Settlement; in their favor, without 
sufficient compensation or remedies for their violation of the 
Sherman Anti-Trust Act. In essence, settling for what Microsoft 
thinks it's own punishment should be and thus allowing them ways to 
circumvent and remove themselves from the penalties.
    Dan Kegel provides some excellent insights into how this 
situation should be remedied. I offer a link to his web site for 
your review. http://www.kegel.com/remedy
    I agree with his conclusion, namely that the Proposed Final 
Judgment as written allows and encourages significant anti-
competitive practices to continue, would delay the emergence of 
competing Windows compatible operating systems, and is therefore not 
in the public interest. It should not be adopted without substantial 
revision to address these problems.
    Thank you for your time and attention in these matters.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Rippy



MTC-00017375

From: John Silver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea. It does little to 
punish Microsoft, does little to insure they will ``toe the 
line'' moving forward, and does not address the substantive 
issues which lead to creation of the Microsoft hegemony in the first 
place.
    The settlement is little more than a wink and a nod towards 
corporate malfeasance, and an abrogation of the duties of the 
responsible government agencies.
    I thank you for your consideration.
    -John Silver



MTC-00017376

From: Jason Henriksen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. This settlement is widely perceived as a non-
punishment for Microsoft. By allowing this settlement to go forward, 
the government sends the message that it is ok to break corporate 
law because you will not truely be punished for it. Many computer 
enthusiasts and business people are watching this trial and will 
base future behaviour around the outcome. If Microsoft is given a 
non-punishing settlement, people wil reason that it is ok to commit 
a crime so long as you have the the clout to avoid punishment. The 
courts must enforce a real punishment on what has been proven to be 
a real crime. If the courts do not enforce a truely behaviour 
changing penalty on Microsoft the rule of law over corporate america 
will be drastically weakened. A capitolist system depends on the 
rule of law to ensure a level playing field and promote competition. 
The people of the United States have charged the justice system with 
ensuring fair capitolist competition. Please do not let us down.
    Jason Henriksen President, Hardy Henriksen Hughes Consulting 
Inc.

[[Page 26402]]



MTC-00017377

From: Chris Jeffries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I believe that the following passage expresses my general 
concerns regarding the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. I am sure that if I were to more completely 
research the agreement I would find even more which disturbs me; 
however the implications outlined below are quite disturbing even 
when unaccompanied by the rest of the settlement.
    Thank you in advance for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Jeffries
    Taken from Robert X. Cringely's article published on December 6, 
2001, at his website
    (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html):
    ``Those who followed the case closely will remember that 
one of Microsoft's chief claims during the trial was that times and 
the nature of business have changed, and that anti-trust enforcement 
ought to be different today than it was when the laws were first 
passed in the early part of the last century. This is a fast-moving 
industry based on intellectual, rather than industrial, capital, 
goes the argument. Sure, Microsoft is on top today (and every day 
since it got bigger than Lotus around 1986) but, hey, that could 
change in a Redmond minute. This argument evidently didn't resonate 
with the court, though, since Microsoft was found guilty. Keep 
repeating to yourself: ``Microsoft is guilty.''
    Well, Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning 
this time on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better 
deal, but literally to disenfranchise many of the people and 
organizations who feel they have been damaged by Microsoft's 
actions. If this deal goes through as it is written, Microsoft will 
emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than before. 
Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgment 
specifically protect companies in commerce-organizations in 
business for profit. On the surface, that makes sense because 
Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic activities against 
``competing'' commercial software vendors like Netscape, 
and other commercial vendors-computer vendors like Compaq, for 
example. The Department of Justice is used to working in this kind 
of economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that 
will rein in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft's greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux-a non-
commercial product-and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don't even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...''
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section Ill(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology-even the 
Department of Justice itself-have no fights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't 
run Windows. I know, I know. The government buys commercial software 
and uses contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold 
for profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am 
being a bit shrill here.
    But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They probably saw this one 
coming months ago and have been falling all over themselves hoping 
to get it through. If this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL 
FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.''



MTC-00017378

From: Biker Grrl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    As a US Citizen, I would like to take a moment to share my 
opinion on the proposed Microsoft Settlement as per my legal rights 
according to the Tunney Act. There are so many things wrong with 
this settlement that I don't know where to begin.
    Although I believe that forcing Microsoft to make Window's API 
available to competitors is a start, the settlement gives Microsoft 
far too much leeway in determining who deserves this information. 
Why does the court assume that Microsoft will do the right thing 
here when they have violated the law so blatantly in the past ? 
Microsoft could refuse to share the Windows APIs with any company it 
wanted. This settlement would force many companies/organizations to 
take Microsoft to court to get these APIs. Frankly, these small 
lawsuits would be of little consequence to Microsoft. After all, 
litigating against the behemoth has drained the states coffers, what 
chance does a small to medium sized business have against it ? On 
that topic, I am outraged that Microsoft isn't being penalized for 
their illegal activities. Do drug dealers get to keep the money they 
made from the sales of their illicit substances ? No. Why is it that 
Microsoft made millions of dollars gauging customers on the price of 
their products because they were leveraging their Monopolistic power 
and yet get to keep every penny. Ironically, it is that money that 
is buying their way out of this. And don't think for a second that 
their donation to the schools ordered in the civil trial is a 
penalty. Let's face it, its an opportunity for the giant to gain 
market share in the only area they don't own. Here's an idea: how 
about Microsoft is forced to pay the states for costs associated 
with the lawsuit. As I see it, taxpayers have gotten screwed twice 
on this. Once when we were gouged on the software and again after we 
had to pay to take them to court to stop their terrible practices. 
How about we right this wrong and make them pay court costs ? I 
could continue on for quite some time about the problems with the 
proposed settlement, but I believe my previous arguments are 
sufficient to indicate that I am very much against his settlement. 
thank you for your time, Mindy Billingham 532 Tibet Rd Columbus, 
Ohio 43202.



MTC-00017379

From: Jason Robinson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern My Name is Jason Robinson. I am a US 
Citizen, age 26. Beyond those facts, no amount of justification 
should be necessary to accept the following as valid opinion. I do 
not agree with the currently proposed settlement. While it does 
appear to solve a few problems that led to microsoft becomming the 
Monopoly that it currently is, it does not propose adequate 
restrictions to bring back fair competition to the arena of computer 
operating systems, nor does it propose adequate repercusions to 
Microsoft for their past injustices. I am not a microsoft hater. I 
use their products every day just like you......wheter we like it or 
not. Please provide a remedy that will provide just penalties to a 
company of Microsoft's size and wealth, and will restore the ability 
for companies and individuals to gain entry into the Operating 
System Market. Thank you for your time, Jason Robinson



MTC-00017380

From: Vijay Brian Gupta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:06pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    First off, I would like to have my comments listed anonymously 
if possible. (I imagine many folks are holding off from contacting 
you for fear of upsetting Microsoft) It seems to me that the 
proposed settlement seems to be pretty useless in preventing future 
abusive behavior from Microsoft. Look at this way: Microsoft is a 
monopoly, they have been shown to abuse

[[Page 26403]]

that monopoly power in the past, despite court injunctions and 
consent decrees. My question is, how can this really to be solved 
without some sort of drastic measure. I.E.: Splitting up the 
company, or at least force them to standardize and release 
``ALL'' APIs, protocols and file formats to the public. 
(No exceptions, especially security) The problem with the settlement 
is that it is incredibly vague, and allows Microsoft to basically go 
about business as usual. (They have proven through past behavior to 
have little concern for the intent of the law, and will bend and 
occasionally outright break any rules). You don't have to be a 
technology wizard to see this. Why does this bother me? I have been 
using computers for almost 20 years, and have seen the industry 
evolve and grow. I have known of, and followed many technologies 
since then, including those of Microsoft. Microsoft has 
systematically destroyed great technology after great technology. 
(More accurately, they destroy the company that invented the great 
technology, and ``invent'' it themselves). This was a way 
of life for them when they were a smaller player, and wasn't really 
breaking the rules. (It may have been consider playing dirty, but it 
was legal) Now that they are truly a monopoly (as proven in court) 
they must be held accountable for these actions. (As well as 
prevented from doing so in the future.) It is one thing for 
Microsoft to be able to spend more money on R&D to attempt to 
build a better product (Which invariably they seem to eventually 
pull off, after the innovator of said technology is destroyed or 
bought out). But for them to use bundling and such to extend their 
desktop monopoly into new areas is unforgivable. If they were 
required to sell these products separately like their competitors, 
It would keep their competitors alive longer so that thriving 
competition will keep products improving and the pressure on the 
monopolist to innovate. Not to mention, keep the incentive for 
innovation alive. One more point to consider in the proposed 
settlement is that Open Source applications and competitors are 
excluded from protection. (Check Section III(J)(2)... Competitors 
must meet Microsoft's criteria as a business for the settlement to 
apply. They must not bundle, they must release all API's, protocols 
and file formats to the public (and comply to these standards as 
released, only being allowed to change them if they publish the 
changes first.) If this is deemed too much to keep track of and non 
enforceable (being a drain on DOJ resources), I suggest you follow 
the original plan of breaking up Microsoft into separate companies. 
Please come up with a more equitable solution then has been 
proposed. (More enforceable, specific, and drastic).
    Thank you,
    Brian Gupta US Citizen



MTC-00017381

From: Rick Pufky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to add some comments about the Proposed Settlement 
for the Microsoft Antitrust case. I do not believe that the Proposed 
Settlement will not effect many changes in its current state.
    One area where a more fulfilling settlment could be made is in 
the area of Windows APIs. Currently, the definition of an API, in 
the Proposed Settlement, is too restrictive to be of any use. The 
current definition in the Proposed Settlement defines the API as an 
interface between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows. This 
definition does not include any of the other Windows APIs that are 
used by other applications. By changing this to include ALL Windows 
APIs, will open up the software field to other developers who have 
not previously had access to these APIs.
    This is just one example of the changes that could be made to 
the Proposed Settlement to level the field between Microsoft and 
other software companies.
    Thank you for listening,
    Richard R. Pufky
    Rochester, NY



MTC-00017382

From: John Biederstedt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the provision of the Tunney Act I would like this 
communication to be considered to be a complaint against the 
proposed settlement. The proposed settlement relies on definitions 
which deviate from the court's finding of fact in respect to 
operating systems, middleware, application programming interfaces, 
and software. The settlement's definitions are narrow enough to 
allow Microsoft to utilize restrictive licensing and concealment of 
APIs to protect and extend its current monolopy in some cases by 
simply changing the versioning format of a middleware software 
product. Clearly, the proposed settlement will not significantly 
prevent Microsoft from continuing its harmfull monopolistic 
bahaviour.
    The proposed settlement also does not even try to address 
problem of undisclosed file formats which earlier courts found to be 
one of Microsoft's tactics to protect its monopoly. I do not beleive 
the proposed settlement will remedy or improve Microsoft's 
monopolist practices.
    As a further comment, I find it disheartening that a corporation 
can so selectively choose its final legal remedies after violating 
US law.



MTC-00017383

From: Peter Vessenes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US DoJ,
    I'm a business owner who uses a mix of closed and open sourced 
products, and I believe that the PFJ for Microsoft is bad for my 
business (10 employees), and bad for the economy as a whole. A 
significant percentage of the US population is employed by a small 
business-While I don't claim to speak for all small 
businesses, I imagine my situation is a common one.
    I'm not a lawyer, and I can't analyze the PFJ in any legally 
meaningful way, but I do know what things are bad for my business. 
The letter at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html details much 
better than I could many problems with the PFJ.
    For example, the note ``The PFJ does not require Microsoft 
to release documentation about the format of Microsoft Office 
documents'' is astounding to me. As a small business, each new 
computer costs us about $1,000, or about 10% of our hiring and 
training costs. If we add in the costs for Microsoft operating 
systems and applications, that number rises to about $1,800-8% 
of our cost for hiring an employee go directly to Microsoft!
    The straight truth right now is that there are no competitors to 
Microsoft in the Office arena, which offer sufficient functionality 
to run our company. Our business must have software that reads and 
writes standard Microsoft Office file formats if we are to connect 
with other companies. Open Source programs like StarOffice keep up 
with Microsoft's changing file standards as well as they can, but 
it's a part of Microsoft's strategy to introduce backward 
incompatibility in software products.
    This only hurts the economy, and finally the consumer! I do not 
need the new features of Microsoft Office XP, in fact I would be 
quite content to use the features found in Office 97, or Office 95. 
What I do need is to be able to send and receive documents in a 
format other companies can understand.
    If Microsoft were to open their file formats, by writing 
_complete_ technical descriptions of them, other 
companies would be able to introduce competing products which could 
interoperate, thereby nullifying one aspect of Microsoft's Office 
monopoly in corporate America. The competition would reduce the cost 
of those software products, and let me put my money into things like 
salary and corporate giving, rather than Microsoft's multi-billion 
dollar cash coffers.
    Thank you for your time! I would be pleased to discuss this 
matter with you further if you are interested.
    Peter Vessenes
    President, Ybos Corporation
    617-621-7787
    http://www.ybos.net



MTC-00017384

From: Greg Licon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't allow this case to be settled without the 
separation of Microsoft from Windows. They can still make or break a 
company just by entering the market. Look at WebTV, Netscape, (Sony 
PlayStation soon), and numerous others.
    One of the reasons Apple can't get beyond 5% market share is the 
applications barrier. Microsoft makes Office and Internet Explorer 
for the Mac...other than that there are no current enterprise 
applications written by Microsoft for the Mac platform or any other 
platform except Windows. If Microsoft had Windows taken away from 
them there would be no bias against which platform to develop their 
applications and the platforms could each compete with a level 
playing field. Greg Licon Concerned Professional (925)825-4765

[[Page 26404]]



MTC-00017385

From: Charles Kerr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the Revised Proposed Final Judgement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. While it is an improvement over the 
previous proposal, the revised proposal still has many stipulations 
that are unlikely to be enforced.
    Here are the stipulations that I find questionable, from section 
III, ``Prohibited Conduct'', of the revised proposal.
    A. ``or by withholding newly introduced forms of non-
monetary Consideration (including but not limited to new versions of 
existing forms of non-monetary Consideration)'' This does not 
address the possiblity of Microsoft witholding existing forms of 
non-monetary considerations from OEMs for supporting non-Microsoft 
products.
    A. 2. ``shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both 
a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating 
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System;'' 
Does not address the possiblity of an OEM shipping some computers 
without any Microsoft Operating System at all.
    C. 1. ``except that Microsoft may restrict an OEM from 
displaying icons, shortcuts and menu entries for any product in any 
list of such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the 
Windows documentation as being limited to products that provide 
particular types of functionality, provided that the restrictions 
are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft and Microsoft 
products.'' Microsoft could claim that a product that competes 
with their own product has a prohibited type of functionality. It's 
easy to take two programs that provide a similar, but not identical, 
functionality and add the difference to the list of prohibited 
functionality. To be plain, I don't see what possible positive use 
this condition could have. Surely if the OEM wants to add value by 
including software, that's should be the OEM's decision?
    C. 3. ``Launching automatically ... any Non-Microsoft 
Middleware if a Microsoft Middleware Product that provides similar 
functionality would otherwise be launched automatically at that 
time'' Seems to allow Microsoft to limit middleware 
functionality to only the set provided by Microsoft middleware.
    If a .NET competitor added extra functionality for a competitive 
advantage, could an OEM be restricted from bundling it?
    C. 3. ``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.'' This forces 
competing software vendors to follow Microsoft's lead in these type 
of products and again seems to restrict functionality to only that 
supported by Microsoft middleware.
    D. It's been commented on elsewhere that this section allows 
Microsoft to shut out noncommercial concerns, such as Free Software 
projects and government agencies, from docuementation. The 
definition of ISV seems to be wide enough to address these concerns, 
but I include this point here in case my interpretation is in 
error.:)
    E. ``and (ii) used to interoperate natively (i.e., without 
the addition of software code to the client operating system 
product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.'' 
This clause seems to add a loophole without any apparent benefit.
    F. 2. ``Except that Microsoft may enter into agreements 
that place limitations on an ISV's development, use, distribution or 
promotion of any such software if those limitations are reasonably 
necessary to and of reasonable scope and duration in relation to a 
bona fide contractual obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or 
promote any Microsoft software or to develop software for, or in 
conjunction with, Microsoft.'' What is the interpretation of 
``reasonable''? Would it be reasonable, for example, for 
Microsoft to place limitations on an ISV's ability to distribute 
Linux if the ISV entered into a contractual obligation to distribute 
Windows?
    G. 1. This stipulation is contradictory. It claims that 
Microsoft may not enter into a contract that will force the other 
party to exclusively or favorably deal with Microsoft products as 
opposed to competing products. Then it says that they actually can 
do this as long as they can provide numbers that show it is 
reasonable to favor the Microsoft product. Since Microsoft has such 
a large percentage of the market they will always be able to produce 
numbers that show this. The DOJ must never let them enter into an 
agreement that removes the other parties right to use a competing 
product.
    H. 3. ``without first seeking confirmation from the 
user'' The entire idea of automatically altering an OEM's 
configuration of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries seems to be 
nothing more than a way of circumventing section III C, and should 
be prohibited. Barring that, there should be constraints on what 
form this confirmation will take. Will it pop up each time Windows 
is booted after the first 14 days? Will it be explain the choice, or 
simply say ``Your Windows configuration may not be correct. 
Would you like to correct it?''
    J. 1. This clause would seem to break other interoperability 
clauses. How, for example, will third-party tools be able to 
interoperate with the Microsoft platform if the authentication 
protocols are closed?
    J. 2. ``(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''
    This condition will allow Microsoft to close off documentation 
from free software developers, such as Linux and its tools like 
Samba. These are non-commercial programs, and therefore have no 
``business need''. Likewise, not many free projects will 
have the funds to comply with J.2.(d).
    Moreover, this agreement only limits Microsoft's future 
behavior. It does nothing to punish them for past behavior that has 
been found to be anticompetitive.
    Thank you for your time.
    Charles Kerr
    Software Developer



MTC-00017386

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:08pm
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
Re: U.S. v. Microsoft
    It is ironic that the FBI has moved to prevent Enron from 
destroying documents, yet Microsoft which was declared guilty by our 
Federal judiciary system has succeeded in invoking Constitution 
liberties which were intended for the sole protection of individuals 
against strong interests, to advance their own corporate greed. Why 
is it that Enron is dirty rotten scum, yet Microsoft has somehow 
gained the confidence of the masses, that even Conservatives 
commonly believe that Microsoft is an example of the little guy who 
made it big.
    Regards,
    Tim Keith
    28501 Bonn Mountain Drive
    San Antonio TX 78260
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017387

From: 
ross.wentworth @ ascentialsoftware.com@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case, if 
implemented, would be an outrage. Microsoft has consistently shown 
contempt for the law by acting as if they are not bound by any 
settlements. Furthermore, the settlement would not punish Microsoft 
for illegal behavior they have been found guilty of, nor would it 
prevent any future anti-competitive actions by Microsoft.
    A reasonable settlement would include the following at the 
minimum:
    1. A fine of no less than one billion dollars, CASH, no 
donations to public schools in obsolete hardware and Microsoft 
software, which would only further Microsoft's monopoly.
    2. Break Microsoft into two companies, seperating the operating 
system portion from all other software divisions. Internet access 3. 
software such as ``Internet Explorer'' should never be 
considered part of the operating system.
    4. Require Microsoft to make the operating system API publicly 
available in full.
    5. Disallow the non-OS divisions of Microsoft from using hidden/
non-public API features.
    6. Disallow exclusive OS contracts with retailers and OEMs. This 
was attempted before, but was ignored by Microsoft.
    7. Require Microsoft to implement uniform licensing fees and to 
the pricing system public (to prevent further abuses of point 6).
    Thank you for listening.
    Rossz Vamos-Wentworth
    Dublin, California
    925-803-8310

[[Page 26405]]



MTC-00017388

From: Bill Amend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have been informed that under the Tunney Act, comments from 
the public may be taken into account. This is to express my unease 
with the proposed terms of a settlement with Microsoft over its 
monopolistic practices. It seems clear to me that any settlement 
must favor Microsoft's competitors more than what is being proposed.
    Please reject the proposed settlement terms.
    Sincerely,
    William Amend
    Kansas City, MO



MTC-00017389

From: David (038) Laura Totten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Most, if not all, countries want to have companies like 
Microsoft. Some countries even work with their industries to develop 
dominate industry positions. It is bewildering to me that our 
government, via lobbyist money, is trying to interfere with 
business. This interference can only lead to higher prices to the 
consumer, while our legal system and other governments bleed money 
and resources away from business (Microsoft). In effect, our 
government is harming its own citizens and country while trying to 
???spin??? this action as protection. Protection from 
what-better value, better pricing and better competition?
    It is a mystery to me why the federal appeals court did not 
throw out the whole case Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson was involved 
in. This judge was prejudice against Microsoft before the case 
began. According to our legal system Microsoft can not even give 
away its product to the needy or to the schools. Who is the judicial 
system trying to help, the citizens or special interests? I do not 
believe Microsoft is harming US consumers. I do not believe business 
should not be run by lobbyists in the government. Allowing competing 
companies to, in effect, lobby the judicial system to gain advantage 
can only hurt consumers and our economy.
    The problem is some other companies did not, and do not, compete 
as well as Microsoft. Microsoft is only dominate in its operating 
system and office software. It appears that competitors to Microsoft 
want an unfair advantage so they don???t have to be as competitive. 
This harms a free economy.
    CC:Daryl Totten



MTC-00017390

From: Marv Pribble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software consultant. I am aware everyday of the increased 
cost of doing business caused by Microsoft's monopoly. Many of my 
customers would be much better served in a more competitive 
environment. The proposed settlement is an insufficient solution and 
should be modified to ensure competition.
    Marv Pribble



MTC-00017391

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing because I believe that the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement is a very bad idea.
    You are obviously aware of all the arguments on both sides so I 
won't go into them all. But basically my opinion is this... 
Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist. They have not 
admitted to their wrongdoing, do not seem to understand what they 
have done wrong and continue to figure out ways around the law to 
monopolize other markets. They have been convicted more than once, 
one would think they would learn. Because of this, a behavioral 
remedy is out of the question. It is too costly and difficult for 
the court to manage, and as Microsoft's past behavior has shown, 
they will work around the remedy.
    A structural remedy is the only effective solution. To restore 
competition to this market and to stop the predatory behavior, 
Microsoft must be broken into competing OS and Applications 
companies, maybe three OS and three Applications companies. This 
worked in the Standard Oil case and monopolizing the computer market 
is equivalent to the wrong Standard Oil did in monopolizing the oil 
market. The computer market is as critical to our economy as the oil 
market was 100 years ago. It can not be left in the hands of a twice 
convicted monopolist for the sake of our economy. Breaking Microsoft 
into an OS company and an Applications company as was the previous 
remedy is flawed because it creates two monopolies. It is as bad as 
the AT&T break up which did not create competing entities with 
the regional Bells. The whole purpose of anti-trust laws is to 
restore competition. Please do this by breaking Microsoft into 
competing units.
    Rich Lesh
    St. Peters, MO
    Software Developer, Small Business Owner



MTC-00017392

From: Ralph Rodkey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a Computer Science major at a small private college in 
Indiana, so these Microsoft hearings have a potentially serious 
impact on the landscape of the industry that I've chosen to spend 
the rest of my career in. I have several major concerns concerning 
the Proposed Final Judgment. First, I would love to see the 
middleware APIs opened, but the Proposed Final Judgment has flawed 
definitions that would allow Microsoft to easily re-close the APIs 
by changing version numbers. Second, the provisions concerning OEMs 
do not limit Microsoft's ability to extend its monopoly, 
specifically on Intel hardware. Third, and most important, no 
consideration is made of any Open Source software. The PFJ only 
places limits on commercial operating systems. Microsoft itself has 
stated that Linux is its prime competitor at the moment, yet the PFJ 
makes no mention of limits in this area. I consider this issue to be 
extremely important. The developers of Open Source generally work on 
their own time and money, and thus have nothing approaching the 
resources that Microsoft can bring to bear, both financially and 
legally. Many cutting-edge technologies are developed through the 
Open Source process, and allowing Microsoft to subsume this would be 
a grievous hurt to the entire industry. Please consider these 
issues, and thank you for your time and effort.
    Ralph Rodkey
    [email protected]



MTC-00017393

From: Jannes Pockele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir, Madam,
    I would hereby like to express my doubts about the effectiveness 
of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. I am sincerely 
concerned about Microsoft's position in the software market, and I 
don't believe the proposition lives up to the harm done in the past, 
nor does it provide enough of a remedy for the future. Mellow as it 
is, half a punishment will reduce itself to no punishment at all 
with a company that has the financial power Microsoft has; words 
will be bent, restrictions circumvented, new tricks will be learned, 
and legal statements adapted, reducing what's already too small a 
price to pay, to basically nothing. Strong, adequate measures should 
be taken against Microsoft-being fully accountable for their 
actions-so as to ensure that at least something's left after 
Washington lobbying and stretching legal phrases beyond recognition. 
It should not be let off easily, clearly still not having understood 
the message.
    Kind regards,
    Jannes



MTC-00017394

From: Erin Towner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00017395

From: Sasha Zucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel that the proposed settlement for the Microsoft anti-trust 
case is a bad idea as it does not even begin to address problems 
caused by the monopoly in the operating system and web browser 
industry that the aforementioned corporation has been found to 
possess.
    thank you,
    Sasha Zucker
    [email protected]



MTC-00017397

From: Damon Richardson

[[Page 26406]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: MS Settlement.
    I find that I am outraged over the purposed settlement with MS.
    There are too many loop holes. And as I read it... It's in favor 
of MS. I feel that many of the terms in the document will actually 
help Microsoft keep control of their monopoly.
    I also feel that the persons in charge of the proceedings are 
not qualified to stand in judgment of Microsoft and lack a basic 
understanding of how Microsoft has conducted it's self in regards to 
crushing competition. Also there does not seem to be any 
understanding of how Microsoft has used proprietary protocols to 
lock out NON Microsoft client software.
    Thank you,
    Damon C. Richardson
    9810 hudson
    St. Louis, MO 63119
    Software Developer



MTC-00017400

From: Brian Degenhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I would like to add my comments to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement and point out that there are serious flaws in the 
settlement. For example, in section III A.2 it states that Microsoft 
shall not retaliate against an OEM for:
    ``shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a 
Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating 
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating 
System...'' but it says nothing about shipping a personal 
computer without the Windows Operating system. Due to Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices, it is virtually impossible to buy a 
computer that does not contain Microsoft Windows, yet the proposed 
settlement does not explicitly forbid Microsoft from continuing the 
retaliation towards non-windows computer manufacturers.
    This is unacceptable.
    -bmd



MTC-00017409

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please don't allow the proposed settlement go through!
    The proposed settlement does nothing to stop Microsoft from 
continuing to maintain their monopoly illegally and, in fact, allows 
them to continue their illegal practices and opens markets that they 
haven't yet taken over.
    Microsoft has wrecked a large number of companies and is 
attempting to take over all access to the internet!
    Please, you are our last hope for freedom on the internet and 
our computer desktops.
    Chuck Landress
    2664 James Road
    Douglasville GA 30135
    770-947-1817



MTC-00017410

From: Jim Laurin
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My wife and I strongly oppose the Microsoft Settlement 
agreement. We believe it is the government's duty to set limits and 
enforce penalties against companies who practice anticompetitive 
practices. We are very disappointed that the government caved in on 
this. We suspect it was for political reasons because of the short 
term economic results that may occur that could reflect negatively 
on the current Administration. As a life long Republican, I would 
like to see the Justice Department enforce the rule of law so that 
other companies don't see this as an opportunity to do the same 
thing.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Laurin & Alynn Laurin
    Sunnyvale, CA



MTC-00017411

From: vorck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Commentary
    I wish to avail myself of the opportunity made to the public by 
the Tunney Act and wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. The PFJ fails to prohibit anticompetitive license terms 
currently used by Microsoft (see e.g. The Microsoft Windows Media 
Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA). Microsoft currently uses and will continue in 
the foreseeable future to use restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source programs from running on Windows.
    Conversely, the PFJ fails to prohibit anticompetitive license 
terms for development tools. The Microsoft Platform SDK, together 
with Microsoft Visual C++, is the primary toolkit used by 
independent software vendors to create Windows-compatible 
applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: 
``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute...the 
Redistributable Components...provided that (a) you distribute the 
Redistributable Components only in conjunction with and as a part of 
your Application solely for use with a Microsoft Operating System 
Product...''
    The settlement simply does not go far enough to end unacceptably 
restrictive EULA terms.
    Respectfully submitted
    Frederick D. Vorck



MTC-00017412

From: Michael Spurlock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed settlement in the case against Microsoft is 
unacceptable and will only serve to further their control in the 
marketplace. There are many experts who are more than willing to be 
consultants in this case who can help achieve a fair but proper 
settlement. If you have any questions or if I may be allowed to 
assist in location and talks with said consultants, please let me 
know. Please do not continue with the current settlement as it is 
completely lacking in substance that will affect Microsoft's 
business practices. Thanks for your time.
    Michael Spurlock
    [email protected]
    The opinions expressed above are mine alone and are not 
necessarily shared by my employer.



MTC-00017414

From: Arne Romo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It may concern:
    I am a software engineer at Hewlett Packard (my words may not 
represent official company position) for the past 16 years in Fort 
Collins, CO. I am a US citizen.
    It is clear that a good attempt was made to address significant 
issues by the propose settlement with Microsoft.
    What is equally as clear is that the settlement as written falls 
short of the mark at prevent MS from dancing around the letter of 
the settlement and still achieving the same results at they have 
pre-settlement. Likewise enforcement seems very weak and open to 
stalling tactics.
    The rules are not rigorous enough and the authority/independence 
of the enforcement efforts is not powerful/empowered sufficiently.
    -Arne Romo



MTC-00017425

From: Kristina Pfaff-Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    Just a note to say that I don't believe the Proposed Final 
Judgment in the Microsoft antitrust case is in the public interest, 
and should be re-evaluated on several levels, including enforcement 
mechanisms and definitions of various things.
    Thanks.
    Kristina Pfaff-Harris



MTC-00017427

From: Shanan Levin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``revised proposed final judgement'' is NOT a 
valid or appropriate solution to the findings of fact regarding 
Microsoft's monopolistic business practices. An enforcement 
authority, a technical committee and a single Microsoft internal 
compliance officer (that has no real power to change anything) is 
not a just/fair solution to the continuing Microsoft monopoly. The 
aforementioned entities will have no real power, other than to slap 
Microsoft on the wrist for competing unfairly. None of the changes 
mentioned in the revised proposal force Microsoft to compete in the 
free market, simply because they have become so widespread and 
ubiquitous. Over time, some of the changes called for in the revised 
proposal may help loosen Microsoft's monopolistic stranglehold on 
the market, but the amount of time is unknown. The only real way to 
encourage and bring healthy competition back to the market today is 
to

[[Page 26407]]

force the Microsoft policy/operation changes to include not just 
future products/services, but to include the products and services 
(ie. proprietary protocols) that helped them achieve the massive 
control over the (PC and software and services) market in the first 
place. Force existing and future Microsoft products to interoperate 
with non-Microsoft products using open, standard documented 
protocols. Only then can a real change be made to the existing 
marketplace, rather than giving Microsoft ample time to find other 
ways of controlling and growing around the revised proposed final 
judgement.



MTC-00017428

From: Brian Bonfiglio
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If it weren't for microsoft, I wouldn't have a job. I support 
them 100%.



MTC-00017429

From: Ben Morse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not approve of the current proposed Final Judgement in the 
case of United States vs. Microsoft. In particular, the proposed 
Final Judgement does not provide enough protection for Microsoft-
compatible operating systems, nor does it force Microsoft to open up 
their file formats, which is a key tool they've used to maintain 
their monopolies. I endorse the recommendations put forth in Dan 
Kegel's open letter to the DOJ, to be found at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html
    Thank you for your time.
    Ben Morse
    45 Concord Ave. #31
    Somerville, MA, 02143



MTC-00017430

From: Jared Kidd
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First of all, I am NOT happy with the proposed settlement for 
this case. Most of the terms in this look like things that any 
company should follow anyway. Microsoft pushes as far as they can 
and when ``ped on their hands'' and told to back down they 
do so for a little while and then push again to see how far they can 
go this time. This settlement seems to put them back in their place 
and hold them there for a while. So where is the punishment? 
Microsoft has damaged this industry by suppressing innovation and 
competition, and slowly twisting standards so they will be on top 
with the only software that supports the ``standards (according 
to MS)'' correctly. And while all this is going on Microsoft 
buys some 3D patents from sgi (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/
54/23708.html). I know that SGI were the ones to sell them but 
anyone who is into 3D graphics and gaming would start to wonder what 
MS means to do with these patents. My guess would be to crush 
openGL, which is used on many platforms in favor of their DirectX/
3D, which only works on Microsoft operating systems. They should be 
punished in a way that doesn't further their monopoly.
    I am not running Windows as my main operating system on my home 
PC but with the new ``.NET'' junk and them forcing it down 
our throats I fear that someday there will no longer be any 
alternative operating systems. So I sincerely ask that you rethink 
the settlement and come up with a more effective plan that will 
hopefully restore and sustain our freedom of choice.



MTC-00017431

From: Aaron Lambers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I do not have the time to go into much detail on this I 
must at least make it known that I believe the currently proposed 
settlement to be a Bad Thing (tm). Microsoft cannot be let off so 
easily.
    Aaron Lambers
    Boise, ID



MTC-00017432

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft suite
    Along with EVERY one of my co workers, friends and family are 
getting pretty fed up with this government lawsuit. Its NOT about 
protecting the consumers, it's about giving Microsoft competitors 
UNFAIR advantage against MS, so that they do not have to spend 
research money of their own. LET THE INDUSTRY AND THE CONSUMERS 
DETERMINE IF THEY ARE BEING HURT. Making MS software 
``open'' would create chaos for the vast majority of 
consumers. There would be NO stablility or responsibility.
    Quit spending our taxpayers money on this lawsuit and let the 
companies get on with business.
    Gary Matthews
    131 Greenmont Ln
    Cary, NC 27511



MTC-00017433

From: John Starrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not let the Microsoft Corporation get off easy. They 
must not be allowed to flood the schools with PCs running Windows to 
the detriment of Apple and Linux. I have how they push out other 
os'' when they get a foothold.
    John Starrett



MTC-00017434

From: Alan Dickey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ``I do not support the proposed settlement because I do not 
think it provides sufficient punishment to balance Microsoft's 
offenses, nor sufficient incentive to prevent them from doing the 
same in the future. Furthermore, the idea of punishing a monopoly by 
requiring them to extend their monopoly into the US educational 
system is incomprehensible.'' -
    Alan F. Dickey-Interaction and Realization
    http://www.intac.com/afdickey
    mailto:[email protected]
    VOX: 908-273-3232 Cell: 908-334-0932



MTC-00017435

From: Jonathan Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is not acceptable.
    Jonathan Morris, CSQE
    Portland, OR



MTC-00017436

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed ``settlement'' is a joke. It doesn't do 
anything to address what the suit was about.



MTC-00017437

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-Oppose
    I oppose the Microsoft Settlement.
    There are many, many problems, but two key ones are:
    (1) The distribution of Windows software to poor schools only 
serves to deepen Microsoft's monopoly while giving them a P.R. 
opportunity. Instead I support the RedHat proposal in which 
Microsoft supplies hardware and RedHat supplies the operating system 
software. This would be an appropriate remedy.
    (2) Provisions to partially open the Windows code base are 
worded to exclude non-commercial software, specifically Microsoft's 
chief competition, Linux, from access to the code. I believe 
Microsoft is threatened by the GPL implementation of SMP, Samba. 
They plan to change the protocol enough to break Samba (thereby 
forcing servers to use Windows) without having to reveal their code 
changes to free software developers. If Windows code is to be open 
it should be open to all.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Peter Lawson
    Peter W. Lawson, Ph.D.
    1206 SW Abbey
    Newport, Oregon 97365
    [email protected]



MTC-00017438

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft antitrust 
case to be a shameful sellout of all Americans. I can only hope that 
the reason for this is that the court is unable to understand what 
is being perpetrated.
    For me, Microsoft's most objectionable anti-competetive practice 
is the ``embrace, extend, eradicate'' process used to 
subvert various public standards. Examples are the intentional 
incompatibilities inserted into the Kerberos security protocols, 
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), and the Hypertext 
Markup Language (HTML).

[[Page 26408]]

    The HTML incompatibilities have been used to force competitive 
internet browser programs off the market. The court should be well 
aware of that.
    The LDAP incompatibilities are being used to take control of 
internet directory services in general. Directories are specialized 
databases which are very useful for maintaining remotely accessible 
user information. The Microsoft version of LDAP is at the core of 
their Active Directory product and .NET services.
    The more computers an organization runs, the more it has a need 
for a directory in order to maintain the computers and network 
efficiently. Most companies are forced to run Microsoft operating 
systems for word processing, spread sheets, or other applications. 
Microsoft operating systems, by speaking a special version of LDAP, 
force those organizations to use a Microsoft directory product 
(Active Directory) or a Microsoft directory service (Passport and 
.NET). Both of these products are designed to operate well only with 
other Microsoft products. The proof is that they could have used the 
standard LDAP protocol without proprietary extensions.
    Kerberos is a transaction protocol for securing the data 
exchanged between computers. Controlling the security protocols and 
keeping them secret enables Microsoft to prevent any non Microsoft 
product from using the information. It was mathematically proven, 
back in the 1970s, that secret protocols do not lead to greater 
security. Subverting Kerberos must therefor support a business goal. 
The message is that by controlling the protocols for exchanging 
data, Microsoft controls who and what may access that data. That is 
a major threat when coming from a monopolist.
    Sincerly
    Richard Krukar
    4717 Bali Ct NE
    Albuquerque, NM 87111



MTC-00017439

From: Moffitt, Garrett J
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing this email as a response to the Microsoft 
Settlement. I feel that the remedies proposed are inadequate as a 
way to re-establish fair competition in the software industry.
    To bring back competition to a level it was 15 years ago, 
Microsoft must release ALL its API's in time for other companies to 
make the appropriate changes and make releases. The ruling , as it 
stand now, does not give companies enough time to make the changes 
required to stay competitive. Competitiveness should be about the 
quality of software, not about making changes that could effect up 
to 90% of the PCs in the US in a way that prevents competition.
    Another problem with the proposed remedy is that computer 
manufactures will be prohibited from selling computer that have 
Publicly Available Software installed on it.
    To create real desktop competition, Microsoft must be forced to 
release the specifications to all products that are part of there 
Office package. These should include, at a minimum, Word, Excel, 
Outlook and PowerPoint. Doing so would allow business and home users 
a reasonable opportunity to chose what products they want to run, 
instead of being forced to use Microsoft's ``Office''.
    To sum up, the only way to actually get real competition going 
in the computer industry is to force MS to release all there APIs in 
a timely manner, allow computer manufacturers the opportunity to 
install Publicly Available Software without penalty from Microsoft's 
License, and to completely open up Microsoft's ``Office'' 
product for not less then 10 year. I believe this must be done for 
the sake on the consumer.
    Thank you for your time,
    Garrett Moffitt



MTC-00017440

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice Representative,
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft to be 
insufficient in protecting consumers and other businesses from the 
tactics of Microsoft. In brief, I believe the settlement does not go 
far enough to insure that future versions of Microsoft operating 
systems and products can not evade the terms of the settlement.
    I also believe that disclosure of API's (including the Win32 API 
and future OS API's) and file formats (specifically Office, but not 
limited to the Office products) should be required and very few 
limits placed on their use. These are critical pieces of information 
for competitors to design products that interoperate with Microsoft 
products.
    I have submitted my name electronically to be added to an Open 
Letter. The letter can be found at the following URL: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. I endorse the recommendations 
presented in the Open Letter of Dan Kegel and request that the 
Department of Justice read and consider the options presented.
    There must be more considered wording in the settlement so that 
Microsoft can not evade the intent of the settlement. Past history 
says that they will look for any loop hole to get around constraints 
placed upon them. They operate by the letter not the spirit of the 
settlement.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Scott Parish
    111 S 8th St
    Arma, KS 66712
    Scott Parish, Systems Administrator, Pittsburg State University 
Peace on Earth, good will toward men? Not exactly.



MTC-00017441

From: Neil Rotstan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a co-founder of a small computer and network services 
company, which primarily maintains networks, computers, software, 
and other related equipment for small businesses, it might appear 
that a market dominated by a single vendor would be in our favor. 
After all, it would mean a common platform with well-known issues 
that my company could quickly become experienced with and skilled at 
troubleshooting or preventing. However, we feel that such a 
situation is not at all to our advantage or, most importantly, that 
of our clients. Many small businesses have unique needs and very 
restricted budgets. Sure, it's the Microsofts, Fords, and Walmarts 
of the world that get all of the attention. But what really drives 
the business economy are the myriad small and home-base businesses 
operating on the hard-earned savings of a few individuals. For most 
of these, it's critical that they minimize the costs of their 
computing infrastructure while maximizing its benefit, usefulness, 
and performance. And let's face it: the biggest vendor is rarely the 
cheapest or the best. Most of my clients want to utilize 
alternatives wherever possible, because they're usually cheaper and 
better-sometimes even free and superior. Competition in the 
market place not only provides a better opportunity for my clients 
to choose a configuration of hardware and software that works best 
for them, it also gives my company an opportunity to provide that 
service. It makes everybody happier all-around.
    It's easy to believe that the effect of lack of competition in 
the software market is limited to software. But its not: it's 
incredibly widespread, and very detrimental. Not only are consumers 
and small businesses deprived of choice, and not only is Microsoft 
given the opportunity to produce poorer software and charge higher 
prices, but it also turns services such as those offered by my 
company into mere commodities. After all, if everyone has the same 
computing configuration, and if everyone is an expert in it, then 
what difference does it makes who does the work? Viable choices and 
alternatives let my company differentiate ourselves and make our 
clients happier in the process.
    Most of all, competition benefits those who do decide to use 
Microsoft products exclusively. Because once people have a viable 
choice, and Microsoft recognizes this, then it must suddenly work to 
improve the quality, price, and attractiveness of its 
products-something it hasn't needed to for quite a while now.
    I urge you to not allow Microsoft to walk away from this and 
continue business as usual. As technologies continue to integrate 
with each other and our society, computing will become even more 
critical to the success and everyday life of businesses and 
consumers. No matter who creates the innovative products and 
services to bring it all to us, Microsoft will eventually note that 
it's profitable and leverage its monopolies to bully itself into the 
niche and smother the innovators and creative thinkers. And that's 
not good for anybody but Microsoft.
    Thanks for your time,
    Neil Rotstan



MTC-00017442

From: Jim Bullock

[[Page 26409]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW.,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, we wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. We agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret 
APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box- 
operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are advertized as 
being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents?
    This can scare away potential users. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive License Terms currently used by Microsoft Microsoft 
currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps 
from running on Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux!
    (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities 
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional `white box' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. We also agree with the conclusion reached by 
that document, namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written 
allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices to 
continue, would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible 
operating systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It 
should not be adopted without substantial revision to address these 
problems.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00017443

From: Michael McNeany
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom this Matter Concerns,
    I oppose the current resolution to the Microsoft Anti-trust 
case. It does nothing to address the problem of Internet browser 
compatibility issues.
    Currently Microsoft is giving away tools which make web pages 
offensive to users with browsers other than Internet Explorer. In 
many cases these sites actually cause the ``other'' 
browsers to crash completely. Out of frustration the user is forced 
to use Internet Explorer to view these webpages. And Microsoft has 
taken over one more user. Microsoft is clearly using their Monopoly 
to make as many web pages as they can usless in anything other than 
Internet Explorer. I do not know of anything more I can do except 
write this letter to you.
    One Website in question: http://www.BucknellBison.com
    Please try to visit this website with Netscape and with 
Javascript turned ON (Default)
    Sincerely,
    Michael McNeany
    IT Director
    Audio-Video Corporation
    New York



MTC-00017444

From: Tim Huffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I respectfully submit my comments on the proposed settlement in 
the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. Unfortunately, I feel 
that the proposed settlement does little to put an end to 
Microsoft's monopoly, and has no provisions for enforcement.
    I would strongly recommend that Microsoft be forced to publicly 
document the API's for it's various Windows operating systems, and 
that it be required to make publicly available any changes to those 
API's at least six months before releasing software based on those 
changes.
    Publicly documenting the Windows API's does not mean that 
anybody could easily replicate Windows or reverse-engineer it, but 
it would mean that other Independent Software Vendors (ISV's) would 
be able to compete on equal ground with Microsoft's own software 
running on Windows. This is an effective solution because while it 
still allows Microsoft to innovate and create new products, it also 
means that Microsoft cannot further leverage its monopoly by giving 
it's other projects unfair access to secret software code.
    Thank you for your time, and thank you for considering my 
opinion.
    Timothy M. Huffman
    12722 Short St.
    Crown Point, IN



MTC-00017445

From: John Bryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I need to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft `settlement.
    I am writing as an individual consumer, who is greatly concerned 
about the current and future state of the tehcnology industry in the 
United States and how it can hinder or elevate the well being of 
everyone around the world.
    That Microsoft was found to be so egregiously, blatantly anti-
competitive over many years, to be brought before anti-trust charges 
twice now, and this most recent trial so clearly demonstrating the 
need for genuine significant action to be taken to stop Microsoft's 
continued anti-competitive proactices, for which an en banc Appeals 
Court agreed with the Findings of Fact, and then to have this Casper 
Milktoast of a ``settlement'' at the hands of a new 
Executive administration, and concomittant head of Department of 
Justice, is itself a crime against the citizens of the United States 
of American, present and future.
    How dare you!? How could you!? I can tell you I am voting 
anything but Republican

[[Page 26410]]

until this is rightly resolved. And I am an old Reaganite!! This 
sham of a settlement is a disgrace to the justice system at the 
highest level, and demostrates that corporate power carries more 
weight with those that serve this country as civil servants, than 
the true interests of the people. I am outraged.
    I most emphatically agree with the problems identified in Mr. 
Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), summarized here:
-The Proposed Final Judgement doesn't take into account 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems
-The Proposed Final Judgement Contains Misleading and Overly 
Narrow Definitions and Provisions
-The Proposed Final Judgement Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive License Terms currently used by Microsoft
-The Proposed Final Judgement Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft
-The Proposed Final Judgement Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
-The Proposed Final Judgement as currently written appears to 
lack an effective enforcement mechanism.
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written ALLOWS AND 
ENCOURAGES SIGNIFICANT ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES TO CONTINUE, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. It should NOT 
be adopted without SUBSTANTIAL REVISION to address these problems.
    With all Earnestness, Urgency, and Sincerity,
    John Bryan
    [email protected]
    Austin, Texas USA



MTC-00017446

From: Loendorf, Chris
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am a tax paying citizen of the United States who is extremely 
disappointed with the proposed Microsoft settlement. This settlement 
may greatly hinder future development of the computer industry, and 
represents a great miscarriage of justice. I don't believe the 
settlement will restore competition in the computer industry that 
has been eliminated by the illegal actions and practices Microsoft 
has already been convicted of.



MTC-00017447

From: Jeffrey Polaski
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Polaski



MTC-00017448

From: david sowerby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    A unanimous US Court of Appeals found that Microsoft had 
illegally used its monopoly position by preying on other software 
developers and computer manufacturers. Microsoft operated illegally, 
and any settlement that does not reflect this will just allow the 
company to continue this behavior. Unfortunately the proposed 
solution does not do this. In many ways it reinforces Microsofts 
monopoly, If they were found guilty of a crime (and they were) 
punish them and make sure they do not commit the same crimes in the 
future. This governments policy of allowing large corporations to do 
whatever they feel like with no worries about the law has got to 
stop.
    Thank you
    David Sowerby



MTC-00017449

From: James Cheezem
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:15pm
Subject: The Mircosoft settlement is unacceptable
    To Whom it may concern:
    After reading the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-
trust case, I noticed many areas that do not assign damages that are 
in line with the damage that Microsoft has caused. As an independent 
software developer, I have many issues as to the quality of 
Microsoft's products. If I cannot have full and unfettered access to 
the Application Program Interface (API) of a specific operating 
system, I cannot use the full potential of the system that is 
running this OS. Therefore, Microsoft encourages badly written 
software by obscuring the API from scrutiny. Section J of the 
settlement's prohibited conduct section addresses the API and 
provides Microsoft a loophole to keep this important information to 
themselves: security. In my opinion, this is the one area of the API 
that should be forced to be open. Given Microsoft's poor performance 
in the area of security in the past, they should not be allowed to 
hide anything behind the mantle of ``security concerns.''
    Thank you for your time.
    James Cheezem
    Greenville, SC



MTC-00017450

From: hrobinson@psychedout roadrally.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please reconsider the proposed final judgement with Microsoft, 
for the following reasons, as stated at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft 
publish its secret APIs, but it defines ``API'' so 
narrowly that many important APIs are not covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft The PFJ Fails to 
Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs The PFJ allows 
Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers 
containing a competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating 
system.
    The PFJ as currently written lacks an effective enforcement 
mechanism.
    Thank you,
    Herb Robinson



MTC-00017451

From: Alistair Cullum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I would like to register my disagreement with the proposed 
settlement in the antitrust suit against Microsoft. The remedies 
proposed are, on the whole, too mild, too vague and ignore the 
concerns of some competing technologies and smaller vendors. I urge 
you to reject this settlement as ineffectual.
    Sincerely,
    Alistair J. Cullum
    http://biology.creighton.edu/faculty/cullum/
    Department of Biology
    Phone: 402-280-3080
    Creighton University
    Fax: 402-280-5595
    2500 California Plaza [email protected] Omaha, NE 
68178-0324



MTC-00017452

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 26411]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgment in the Microsoft case is seroiusly 
flawed because it allows Microsoft to reltaliate against OEMs that 
ship competing operating systems. This is equivalent to allowing the 
schoolyard bully to bludgeon the kid who passes the basketball to 
someone else.
    Thanks
    Gordon Guthrie



MTC-00017453

From: Erin Quill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must tell you that the proposed MS settlement most be changed. 
I've work in the Computer industry for over 15 years and the entire 
time I have had to put up with MS's unfair practices. I remember 10 
years ago when MS was in the practice of `Shipping' 
press releases for products they had not even started to develop 
only to stall companies from looking at competing products.
    It really does not matter what you impose on MS because, just 
like in the past, they will not follow any rules placed on them.
    They need to be stopped and be told they cannot ignore the 
courts as they have in the past.
    Erin Quill
    Corporate Technology Strategist
    Novell Inc.



MTC-00017454

From: Bill Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'm writing to say that I believe that settling with Microsoft 
is a bad idea. It is clear to me that Microsoft acted in violation 
of the Sherman act and that action should be taken to prevent 
further violation. Even now, Microsoft is pursuing ``business 
as usual'' and, after a settlement, we can expect it to 
continue. For example, the pricing for Windows XP is ridiculous 
given that it is for all practical purposes functionally equivalent 
to Windows 2000 with a few new applications thrown in.
    Just some thoughts,
    Bill Gordon
    Vancouver, BC,
    Canada



MTC-00017455

From: Jungalwala, Jay
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement the proposed settlement is bad idea
    Jay Jungalwala
    12 Atherton Road
    Hudson, MA 01749



MTC-00017456

From: Andrew Lasiter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to consumers and Microsoft's competitors.
    Andrew Lasiter
    531 Carver Lane
    Lebanon, TN 37087-8631
    [email protected]



MTC-00017457

From: Conger, Chris A.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, I feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
monopoly is a Bad Deal. This settlement does not deal with the tying 
of the OS to the purchase of a computer. I don't like MS Windows, 
and don't think it's fair that I should be required to buy a copy 
with each computer I purchase. It is an additional tax on my 
purchase with the proceeds going to Microsoft. I use linux and don't 
think I should be required to subsidize Micosoft!
    Chris Conger
    SAIC
    2109 Air Park Rd. SE
    Alb, NM 87106



MTC-00017458

From: Christopher Kemp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I strongly oppose the settlement proposed in the antitrust case 
against Microsoft. I believe that their predatory business practices 
have caused a great deal of harm to the computer industry and 
American business as a whole, and that the proposed settlement does 
little or nothing to remedy this abuse of power, nor insure that it 
will not continue. Indeed, Microsoft has continued conducting 
``business as usual'' even in the face of the charges 
against them, which I believe shows flagrant disregard and contempt 
for the protections put in place in our legal system. I urge you to 
reject this settlement, so that the courts may decide how to best 
remedy the situation.
    With Thanks,
    Christopher Kemp
    Stone Mountain, GA



MTC-00017459

From: Bill Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit 
the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes 
against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is 
able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot 
commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their 
illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their 
abuses and not for the American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Bill W. Davis



MTC-00017460

From: Bryan Housel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to express my agreement with Dan Kegel's comments on the 
Microsoft Settlement, found here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html Bryan Housel, Philadelphia, PA, Software Engineer



MTC-00017461

From: John Jarvis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed judgement benefits only Microsoft. By continuing 
Microsoft's monopoly technical inovation will be stunted. An 
adequate remedy: Make the APIs and file formats of any operating 
system, application program, internet program, ... that has more 
than 10% (?) market share subject to industry wide standards. 
Include a provision insuring no single firm can have more than 25% 
(?) membership on each standards committee. Obviously, numeric 
details and safeguards must be worked out.
    John F. Jarvis
    533 Regent Road
    Augusta, GA 30909



MTC-00017462

From: Paul Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice support for a stonger DOJ final judgement 
in response to Microsoft's anticompetive practices.
    Microsoft's established domination in the desktop market is now 
slowly working it's way into other software markets: digital media 
distribution, embedded appliances, video game and television 
entertainment, and others. Certainly ``innovation'' should 
be permitted and even encouraged, but leveraging on an established 
monopoly to raise its new products and services above normal market 
forces is beneficial only to those who gain wealth by the enlarged 
monopoly. The consumer, the market, and real innovation suffers. If 
the remedy the court seeks does not sanction on the court's own 
terms, the anticompetive practices that Microsoft continues to this 
day, the effort will be worst than futile. A weak final

[[Page 26412]]

judgement will say to Microsoft and other present and future 
monopolists that gaining a illegal monopoly has it's collateral 
damage, but the effort is worthwhile and sustainable. That could 
have a terrible effect on our free market system.
    All of the terms in the settlement should be defined purely by 
DOJ and not negotiated by Microsoft. The DOJ should be 
``breathing down their necks'' for years after the 
settlement to ensure that Microsoft is in compliance and the burden 
should be on Microsoft to show immediately and completely that they 
have not repeated their illegal conduct. And the punishment from 
wavering from the law a second time should be established in this 
final judgement; and it should be severe, all-encompassing and 
swift.
    Please revise the proposed final judgement based on the 
following issues:
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    Thanks for your time,
    Paul Cox



MTC-00017463

From: Pablo Estevas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft should be 
punished for it's actions.



MTC-00017464

From: Kerry Kopp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have been following the 
Microsoft case, read about the proposed settlement, and as a long 
time computer user/programmer/builder, I am not at all in favor of 
it in its current state. Please count this as a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is a 
reasonable punishment to Microsoft, as well as giving Microsoft's 
competitor's a chance to compete fairly.
    Thank you,
    Kerry Kopp
    2051 Cliff Drive #7
    Santa Barbara, CA 93109



MTC-00017465

From: Michael Greenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a programmer, the way in which Microsoft defines its APIs is 
incredibly important to me. The current settlement doesn't require 
advanced technical notification. If I am not informed of Microsoft's 
changes, it hurts my business.
    In addition, the majority of my computers do not run Windows, 
though I do develop for it (most products are in fact cross-
platform, allowing the client to choose). The current settlement 
does not open up Microsoft document standards-which are more 
important to the common user than a APIs-and allows Microsoft 
to insert deliberate incompatibilities (as it has done in the past 
[Word 97 to Word 2000, for instance]) forcing users to upgrade or to 
at least stick with the Microsoft platform. My ability to work in an 
environment that I choose is hindered by Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices, and the current settlement allocates no repair for this.
    Most importantly, however, I fail to see any real method of 
enforcing the proposed changes. While I do not doubt the 
effectiveness of the Technical Committee in finding breaches by 
Microsoft, leaving the solution of such practices to the legal 
system holds no hope for reform. Already Microsoft has spent years 
contesting the very terms of this settlement, and it is certainly 
willing (and easily able) to combat every infringement lawsuit.
    The above are but three of sundry reasons that the DOJ 
settlement must be more forceful.
    Thank you,
    Michael Greenberg.
    204 Prospect St.
    South Orange, NJ 07079



MTC-00017466

From: Norris Lauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not like the minor hand slap that Microsoft is going to get 
with the proposed settlement.
    Norris Lauer
    2908 white oak drive
    Plano, TX 75074



MTC-00017467

From: Fred A. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The existing settlement with Microsoft is a sham. The best 
interests of all consumers has been severely injured.
    Fred A. Miller
    Systems Administrator
    Cornell Univ. Press Services
    [email protected]



MTC-00017468

From: Achim Wengeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 23, 2002 A.G. John Ashcroft 
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, 
DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I would like to begin by saying that the antitrust suit against 
Microsoft thus far has not yet affected my business. But I don?t 
know what the future will hold for my technology-based business if 
litigation was to continue. I believe that the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice is a rational and 
even-handed.
    Even thought the settlement may seem to stifle free enterprise, 
it is better to settle this case and move on to other pressing 
matters. The settlement implements the establishment of a three-
person ``Technical Committee,'' which will monitor 
Microsoft's compliance to the settlement. Microsoft has also agreed 
to make all future versions of its Windows operating system to be 
compatible with non-Microsoft software.
    I strongly advise you to put an end to this money-wasting issue. 
It is a time of peculiar difficulty in our nation's history; it 
would be beneficial to cut out any unnecessary spending. It is vital 
that this settlement is finalized.
    Sincerely,
    Achim Wengeler
    Director of Special Projects



MTC-00017469

From: Will Grzanich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    The proposed settlement is a bad one; please reject it and have 
the DoJ and the states go back and draft something that will address 
the facts found in the District court case. A unanimous US Court of 
Appeals agreed that Microsoft had illegally kept its monopoly 
position by preying on other software developers and computer 
manufacturers. The bottom line is that Microsoft operated illegally, 
and any settlement or resolution of this case should make sure the 
company cannot continue its anticompetitive behavior. Unfortunately 
the proposed solution does not do this. In many ways, it actually 
reinforces Microsoft's monopoly, and does nothing to restrain 
Microsoft from acting illegally again in future markets.
    Indeed, Microsoft has already shown they intend to continue to 
piggyback off their illegally obtained operating system monopoly to 
crush more markets. As an example, look at the ``give 
away'' of millions of dollars of development effort in their 
Media Player, which is unnecessarily ``integrated'' into 
WindowsXP-and is targeted at the RealPlayer product line, in 
order to crush it, in the same way they did the Netscape Browser. 
Microsoft, unlike its competitors, simply rolls the development cost 
into their illegally obtained monopoly operating system, and 
undercuts the competition unfairly. Yet the proposed settlement does 
not address preventing this sort of monopolistic behavior at all. 
Remember, developing a media player, a browser and other software 
costs money, and Microsoft leverages their monopoly to mask these 
costs while smashing competition unfairly. The Circuit court in it s 
7-0 decision, and lower courts found this 
``bundling'' illegal and monopolistic, yet the settlement 
does not address this in any sort of meaningful fashion: it allows 
Microsoft to tightly integrate and bundle its media player, its web 
browser, and myriad other applications into the Windows Operating 
System, instead of competing freely against external applications.
    Also, the proposed settlement contains no provisions to remedy 
the unlawful monopolization of the operating system;

[[Page 26413]]

nothing that will produce competition. Remember that the Circuit 
court ordered that a remedy must ``unfetter the market from 
anticompetitive conduct... [and] .. terminate the illegal 
monopoly''. the proposed settlement does nothing of the sort. 
Its attempt to open the ``API'' (programming interface) of 
the Windows operating system will merely reinforce the monopoly, not 
terminate it as the court called for. Also opening the API is not 
enough: Microsoft plans only to open a mere a subset.
    Complete and full disclosure of ALL the source-code is the only 
``opening'' that would suffice to terminate the Microsoft 
monopoly. Finally, the proposed settlement does nothing at all to 
address the issue of effective remedy along side enforcement. the 
proposed penalties are ludicrous-an extension of terms that 
they have already violated is hardly a punishment. Fiduciary 
penalties must be applied, as well as structural ones. Also, the 
solutions proposed for ``competition'' are heavily 
dependent upon Original Equipment Manufacturers for 
implementation-the same OEMs who are partners and part of 
Microsoft's business plans (Such as Dell and Compaq). In sum, this 
settlement is wholly inadequate, and should be rejected and the DoJ 
and the States should be directed to follow the rulings of the 
Circuit Court and lower courts when crafting a settlement, instead 
of ignoring the findings of fact and law, and currying favor with an 
unrepentant lawbreaking monopolist.
    Regards,
    William Joseph Grzanich II
    3854 N. Damen Ave, #1
    Chicago, IL 60618
    (773) 832-1394
    [email protected]



MTC-00017470

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please proceed with caution with regards to your proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. It is, indeed, a very BAD idea. Better 
remedies have been thought up, yet no attention is given to them. DO 
NOT allow Microsoft to provide schools with anything; this only 
increases market share. Strip the browser, and restore competition. 
And by all means, make them stick with it!
    Josh Lawrence
    Help Desk Services
    Truman Arnold Companies
    (903) 794-3835



MTC-00017471

From: David Rysdam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    David Rysdam
    8 Westchester Drive
    Milford, NH 03055



MTC-00017472

From: Paul Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It would enable Microsoft 
to strengthen it's current monopoly and enable it to do even more 
damage to the public interest than it already has.
    For the good of everyone 3rd parties must be able to produce new 
and replacement software components for monopolist Microsoft's 
systems. Toward this end Microsoft must be forbidden from impeding 
the development, distribution, sale, or use of non-Microsoft 
components in any way, and further must be required to COMPLETELY 
disclose ALL component interfaces. ``Component'' and 
``interface'' should be broadly defined by the settlement, 
with specific instances left to the judgement of a disinterested 
watchdog, NOT Microsoft itself.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Gardner
    Software Engineer



MTC-00017473

From: Joel Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has hurt too many companies and individuals to be let 
off the hook this easily. I am for a much heavier penalty for the 
company possibly even splitting the company up.
    Joel Carr
    [email protected]



MTC-00017474

From: Boykin, Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my personal objection to the proposed 
settlement in this case. As a practicing professional in the 
information technology industry, I have seen first-hand the damage 
caused by the anti-competitive actions of the Microsoft corporation.
    I have three specific areas of disagreement:
    1) Lack of enforcement: The proposed remedy does not, in any 
fashion that I could determine, deter the Microsoft Corporation from 
continuing it's monopolistic practices. They have proven, time & 
again, that it is in Microsoft's best interests to disregard the 
laws of the United States, and the best interests of the industry. 
Isee nothing in this document that forces them to change the way 
they do business.
    2) Middleware & Interoperability: (Sections III H.3, III J, 
and specificaly III J.2.c) does not take into account that 
substantial amounts of today's software is developed on a non-
commercial basis by nonprofit groups and volunteers. As I read this 
document, open source groups have no standing, and therefore are at 
risk to be put out of business by the monopoly. In it's current 
form, this remedy allows Microsoft to INCREASE it's market 
dominance, and continue it's monopolistic practices.
    3) Veto power: According to the proposed remedies, 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). ANY solution that allows the 
Microsoft Corporation to determine who does, and who does not, 
qualify to receive API's is unconscienable.
    SUMMARY: The Microsoft Corporation has been found guilty of 
anti-competitive practices; it has settled a similar case ten years 
ago, and now the government is allowing the guilty party to choose 
it's punishment? What's wrong with this picture?
    I recommend that the judge reject the proposed settlement 
outright.
    Dennis B. Boykin IV
    Vice President, Operations
    NCI Information Systems, Inc.
    1-888-409-5457 (Toll Free)
    (703) 903-0325 (Switch)
    (703) 903-9750 (Fax)
    (703) 346-4857 (Cell)



MTC-00017475

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:16pm
Subject: RUSSELL PAVLICEK: ``The Open Source'' from 
InfoWorld.com, Wednesday, January 23, 2002
    This article against the proposed settlement was published in a 
well respected journal of the computer field.
    Ed Dale
    Ernst & Young Center for Business Knowledge
    1200 Skylight Office Tower
    1660 West Second Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
    Work Phone: 216-583-1116
    Fax: 216-622-0199
    RUSSELL PAVLICEK: ``The Open Source'' InfoWorld.com
    Wednesday, January 23, 2002
    REWARDING PUNISHMENT

[[Page 26414]]

    Posted January 18, 2002 01:01 PM Pacific Time
    I'VE RECEIVED A number of requests to address the pending (as of 
this writing) settlement of the civil anti-trust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. Under the pending agreement, Microsoft will be obligated 
to provide hardware and software to thousands of underfunded school 
districts across the country. The logic, if you can call it that, is 
that such schools could benefit greatly from receiving the 
technology they lack.
    Undeniably, there is an emotionally compelling case for this. A 
gigantic company, found guilty of doing wrong, is ordered to help 
the underprivileged. ``We need to do it for the 
children,'' cry the politicos. ``Think of the 
children!''
    ``For the children.'' That's the phrase politicians in 
Washington use to justify an action so irrational that it cannot be 
justified any other way.
    How can I properly characterize this solution? It is like a 
court ordering a convicted drug dealer to give out more free samples 
of heroin to underprivileged children to ensure that their poverty 
does not deprive them of the opportunity to become addicted.
    Sure, public classrooms need more technology. And it is 
especially important that children who don't have as many 
opportunities in life get assistance. But that is not adequate 
justification for assigning the fox to guard the hen house.
    Personally, I like the counterproposal put forward by Red Hat: 
Let Microsoft donate money for computing resources for underfunded 
schools, but let those donations go toward hardware only; then 
populate those machines with open-source software.
    Why open source? Consider the future: What will the schools do 
when they need to upgrade? If you give schools Microsoft software, 
they will be caught in the endless upgrade cycle that has 
characterized life in the Microsoft world. Those upgrades will cost 
money, money that these targeted school districts, by definition, 
cannot spare.
    Instead, arming schools with open-source software will have two 
benefits. First, it will set schools down a long-term path that they 
can afford. The cost of obtaining open-source upgrades is trivial. 
Without low-cost software upgrades, all those nice shiny computers 
run the risk of becoming boat anchors in short order. I'm sure 
someone is saying, ``But open source is too difficult to 
administer!'' Such does not have to be the case, but I'll deal 
with that issue in a future column.
    Also, the Red Hat proposal does not reward Microsoft in the long 
term. If a company is convicted of overpowering markets, why would 
you reward them by putting one of the few markets they don't lead 
under their control? This sounds a lot like a seed-unit program for 
education, not the penalty imposed from losing a trial.
    Corporate misdeeds are supposed to earn punishment, not long-
term investment opportunities. I believe we would all be better off 
if the courts acknowledged the difference between the two.



MTC-00017476

From: Phillip Padden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the proposed settlement and feel it does not truly 
represent the will of the people on this matter. From my experience 
most windows users belong to a camp that thinks dammed if we do 
dammed if we don't. They do not believe their is an adequate 
alternative to windows. This proposal does not face this issue at 
all. MS will continue to hold the power of a monopoly as long as the 
consumer believes they are the only thing, alternatives must be made 
visible to the public. Until the public believe that alternative 
exist MS must be watched. For this reason I suggest an amendment to 
the Sect ``V. Termination'' of the proposal. The ground 
for termination of the TC would not be five years with a potential 
one year extension, instead the ground for termination would be 5 
years with a potential two year extension following the fist fiscal 
quarter when Microsoft's Primary OS no longer has a majority of the 
market. That is to say when 50 % or more of the general populace use 
an OS other Microsoft XX. Microsoft can still maintain the largest 
piece of the pie, however it's piece can not exceed 50%.
    Phillip Padden



MTC-00017477

From: Rick Wittstruck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regards to Microsoft settlement, I feel that Microsoft has 
clearly abused its monopoly power over the computer industry and 
harmed U.S. consumers. Microsoft has been found to be at fault in a 
court of law, and now it's time to determine the penalty. The 
individual consumer has little ability to protect themselves against 
gigantic corporations with billions of dollars in the bank. That's 
where the U.S. government comes into the picture.
    You are the only hope of the U.S. citizen in protecting fair 
commerce. If the U.S. government willing lets corporations have 
their way (and many people already think this is happening) then the 
government may find someday that the great unwashed masses have 
turned against it. We pay taxes for a government that represents the 
citizens, not corporations. In the most recent presidential 
election, approx. 50 million voted Democratic and another 50 million 
voted Republican. Those are large numbers of voters, but even the 
combined number of voters of approx. 100 million is smaller than 
approx. 180 million Americans who chose not to vote.
    Letting Microsoft off the hook will not do much to convince 
Americans that their government is OF, BY, and FOR the people, not 
corporate profits. The U.S. government works for its citizens, and 
if the courts have found Microsoft business practices harmful to 
citizens, then punishment is required. Do NOT backpedal, debate, or 
appease Microsoft. They are so feared by competitors that some 
refuse to comment on Microsoft's business practices! This is not the 
American way of doing business, by any stretch of the imagination.
    Firmly believe Microsoft should be PUNISHED to the full extent,
    Rick Wittstruck
    B.S. in Computer Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1993
    6501 Yankee Hill Road
    Lincoln, NE 68516



MTC-00017478

From: Bruce McFarland
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft shows me that:
    1)Microsoft can buy anything they want
    2)Justice is dead in America unless you have big money to 
purchase it with
    3)The executive branch of government is more interested in 
campaign contributions than punishing wrongdoing
    4)The Microsoft monopoly, with government support, will continue 
it's stranglehold on the computing industry
    5)The previous government ``settlement'' with 
Microsoft shows that Microsoft just says what the lawyers want to 
hear, and go ahead and do whatever they damn well please.
    Bruce McFarland
    125 Catalpa Ave
    Wilmington, DE 19804
    302-994-8850
    CC:'mbmcf(a)bellatlantic.net''




MTC-00017479

From: Svein Ove Aas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm not a US citizen, but I don't need to be to see that this 
settlement is a bad idea, both for your economy and the world's.
    Don't do it.



MTC-00017480

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'd like to take a few moments to comment upon the proposed 
Microsoft Antitrust Settlement as allowed for by the Tunney Act. I 
wish I had more time to research all of the factors that one comes 
across in trying to intelligently articulate an argument against the 
proposed settlement but my time is limited. However, having been a 
user/administrator of Microsoft software for over a decade, and 
having followed the DOJ case against Microsoft from the very 
beginning, as well as reading through the proposed settlement itself 
I have to say I have enough information to offer an informed 
opinion.
    The proposed settlement is way out of proportion for what 
Microsoft has done to it's competitors, customers, as well as the 
computer software market as a whole. The proposed settlement is 
nothing more than a mere ``slap on the wrist'' and merely 
*encourages* Microsoft to continue its grossly blatent abuse of its 
monopoly powers without fear of any responsibility for its crimes. 
The fact that these nine states can even consider this to be a 
settlement is a

[[Page 26415]]

completely inexcusable waste of taxpayer money.
    The problem has already been identified and affirmed *twice* in 
court. Microsoft IS a monopoly. The solution is to allow others to 
fairly compete with Microsoft so that competitive forces (i.e. 
consumer choice) drive the computer software market, not Microsoft's 
monopoly. I didn't see anything within the proposed settlement that 
I believed would change Microsoft enough to even make a dent in the 
monopoly it currently manages. Until there is some real competition 
in the computer market security and innovation within this market 
will continue to be abyssmal. Like any monopoly Microsoft only cares 
about its profits. As it stands, Microsoft can pretty much charge 
whatever it wants for it's software, the software market has little, 
if any input into the equation. The only way to change the 
monopoly's behavior is to make it unprofitable.
    Again, there is nothing in this settlement that will change 
Microsoft's behavior because there is NO financial incentive for 
Microsoft to do so. I greatly urge you to reject this proposed 
settlement on the basis that it will neither change Microsoft's 
behavior nor noticably limit Microsoft's ability to continue 
managing its highly profitable monopoly. To consider this agreement 
to be a settlement in the US citizens'' best interest is a 
grave misjustice.
    Thank you for your time,
    Timothy J Flower
    14861 E Adriatic Pl
    Aurora, CO 80014



MTC-00017481

From: Dave Ruske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 23, 2002
    As a someone who has made their living developing software for 
the last 16 years, most of it on Microsoft platforms, I would like 
to offer my opinions on the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case.
    Several weeks ago I received a phone call from someone with 
Microsoft's ``Freedom to Innovate Network.'' This person 
asked if I had heard about the proposed settlement, and after 
asserting that prolonged litigation would cost taxpayers money and 
be bad for consumers, he asked my opinion. When I declined to give 
it, he politely ended the call.
    I write today because I believe the proposed settlement falls 
far short of what is necessary to restrain Microsoft and foster 
competition in the software industry. Moreover, I am deeply 
concerned about Microsoft's expanding reach even outside the 
industry. It is clear that their ``Freedom to Innovate 
Network'' spreads propaganda, manipulating public opinion for 
political gain. I expect that many of the comments you have received 
are the direct result of these manipulations. Will dissenting voices 
even be heard above the din Microsoft has created?
    I do believe that prolonged litigation would be costly, and that 
Microsoft would fight with tenacity. Nonetheless, this fight is 
necessary. Not only does the proposed settlement fail to deprive 
Microsoft of the fruits of their past illegal practices, it is weak 
on enforcement for the future. Why should Microsoft refrain from 
further violations? By the time violations are caught and acted 
upon, the damage may be irrepairable to competitors and the market 
may be locked in to yet another Microsoft-entangled technology. As a 
software developer, freedom to innovate means choosing the best 
technology for the job. That implies choice.
    Microsoft is free to innovate technology. They should not, and 
must not, be free to innovate new ways to skirt antitrust laws and 
illegally crush their competitors.
    They should not, and must not, be free to manipulate any 
settlement to their advantage.
    Respectfully,
    David John Ruske
    [email protected]



MTC-00017482

From: Patrick McMahon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement is a very, very bad 
idea. I am a computer professional employed by the University of 
Delaware and
    I feel I must write and submit my comment on the proposed 
Microsoft Anti-Trust settlement.
    The proposed remedy to give schools more Microsoft products is 
an unbelievable miscarrage and wholly inappropriate way to punish a 
company for monopolistic behavior! This only helps Microsofts 
monopolistic stance, and denys the public any right to choose the 
educational tools for their school systems.
    There are far too many loopholes allowing Microsoft the ability 
to declare theire development API's closed or ``security 
related'' hurting all but ``sanctioned'' development 
on their products. The proposed settlement does very little to 
provide any remedy to the public for the actions committed by 
Microsoft to the public.
    Patrick McMahon



MTC-00017483

From: Brad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has stifled the tech 
industry and deserves more than a slap on the wrist and an empty 
promise never to do it again.
    -Brad Hall
    Systems Programmer
    TD/Network Systems
    Rutgers University



MTC-00017484

From: alex shepard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Please, don't make me lose what little faith I have left in my 
government.
    Alex Shepard
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00017485

From: Kent Bunn
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the current settlement, as it's proposed, is a VERY bad 
idea.
    Kent Bunn
    Senior Network Engineer
    Access Communications
    (415) 844-6282
    (415) 786-3562 Cell
    [email protected] 




MTC-00017486

From: Jamie Yukes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Jamie Yukes
    Independent
    St George, Utah



MTC-00017487

From: Matthew Sienko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I have been looking at the proposed settlement in the Mocrosoft 
antitrust trial and have become very concerned that it does not 
address important issues. In the end, this settlement fails to 
restrict Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior and would be a very 
negative outcome of this case for everyone except Microsoft. I would 
like to reirerate comments made by Dan Kegel in his essay that can 
be found at the link below: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.htm
    The problems identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment 
can be summarized as follows:
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-

[[Page 26416]]

Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertised as being ``Windows
    Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once 
banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities 
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    * The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. Considering these problems, one must conclude 
that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay 
the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. 
Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest, and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    Please do not allow this settlement to stand in its current form 
as it does little, at best, to limit Microsoft's anticompetitive 
behavior.
    Thank You,
    Matthew D. Sienko



MTC-00017488

From: Jeremy Tietsort
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my disapproval of the proposed judegment. 
There are many areas where it does not serve the public interest, 
but I will point out one in particular.
    There is no mention of remedies for the use of undocumented file 
formats. Microsoft uses the file format of its popular Office 
programs for two things. First, by changing file formats with each 
version, they can ensure that people using two different versions of 
the software will not have seamless interoperability. By doing this, 
if one person upgrades, then the person that they are communicating 
with must upgrade also.
    Second, competing software currently has to figure out each 
version of the Microsoft file formats in order to be interoperable 
with Microsoft Office. This practice usually means that they are 
months or years behind in trying to keep up with Microsoft's ever 
changing format. By forcing Microsoft to publish its file formats, 
other competing software packages would have a chance to be 
interoperable and remove the current Applications Barrier to Entry.
    -Jeremy Tietsort



MTC-00017489

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Considering the past record of Microsoft Corporation in failing 
to obey agreements concerning their abuse of their monopoly position 
we feel that the proposed final judgement is woefully inadequate.
    Microsoft has clearly abused their monopoly position in several 
areas and has never shown any sign of changing their behaviour. The 
proposed final judgement suggests a body checking Microsofts 
behaviour with two out of the three appointments to that body being 
suggested by Microsoft, and no actual power.
    This is only one of the many problems with the proposed final 
judgement, but it is bad enough.
    Yours,
    Adam and Christie Morris, Milwaukie, Oregon.



MTC-00017490

From: Bill Tonkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am of the opinion that the Proposed Finial Judgment 
(``PFJ'') does not go far enough to deter Microsoft from 
engaging in anticompetitive conduct. My reasons for this follow:
    o The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of ``API'' and 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is likely to result in 
important Microsoft interfaces remaining secret and, therefore, 
anticompetitive barriers.
    o The PFJ does not obligate Microsoft to release information 
about undocumented file formats. Undocumented Microsoft file formats 
are a significant Applications Barrier to Entry.
    o The PFJ does not obligate Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. The threat of infringement 
litigation will scare away potential users.
    o In the past, Microsoft intentionally created incompatibilities 
to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems, e.g. the 
1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. The PFJ does nothing to 
prohibit these kinds of intentional incompatibilities from being 
used to create Applications Barrier to Entry.
    Best Regards,
    Bill Tonkin



MTC-00017491

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I find that the propsed settlement does not do enough to 
dissuade Microsoft from continuing its predatory practices.
    They make it very hard for an honest hardworking person to ply 
their trade.
    Software development, and computers in general are supposed to 
be liberating for people. They provide an opportunity for someone 
with interesting ideas to develop products to sell. Microsoft acts 
to impede the progress of others unless it helps themselves.
    Thank you,
    Robert



MTC-00017492

From: Kleinbach, Rod
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The final judgment as written today is a mere handslap for a 
company that has covertly ruined numerous competitors. With only a 
five year term before termination of the judgement it would not 
surprise me to see Microsoft resume its predatory practices again.



MTC-00017493

From: John K. Walsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement against Microsoft does not go far enough 
to promote free competition in the PC market. Microsoft will be able 
to return to ``business as usual'' unless additional 
constraints are placed upon them.



MTC-00017494

From: Bill Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:21pm

[[Page 26417]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement is a bad idea and needs to be reworked to 
actually punish microsoft for the crims they have commited
    Bill Warner
    Unix/Linux Admin.
    Direct Alliance Corporation



MTC-00017495

From: Clayton S. Chan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can't believe you're actually thinking of letting Microsoft 
just walk away on this one. Haven't you guys learned from Enron yet? 
This settlement is an incredibly bad idea, and Microsoft hasn't 
changed anything about their business practices. All theyve learned 
is that they can buy anything they want.



MTC-00017496

From: Nigel Herbig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft does not address any of 
the problems of the case. I think that you must reexamine the case, 
and come to a more appropriate solution.
    Thank you,
    Nigel Herbig
    4748 Latona Ave. N.E.
    Seattle, WA 98105



MTC-00017497

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the current PFJ.
    The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft has a monopoly on 
Intel-compatible PC operating systems and that monopoly has 
significant barriers to entry. The Court also found that Microsoft 
illegally maintaining its monopoly, accoridng to the Sherman Act, by 
imposing licensing restrictions on OEMs and ISVs (Independent 
Software Vendors.
    These violations constitute a major breach of anti-trust laws 
and yet the punishments found in the PFJ are so weakly constructed 
as to amount to little more than a slap on the wrist.
    First, the PFJ does nothing to aid potential competitors in the 
Windows OS world. The critical API's competitors need are not 
required to have advance release. These competitors would not, most 
likely, meet the middleware requirements of having a product meet MS 
defined technical requirements seven months before the final beta 
test of a new version of Windows. So, competitors will have the 
burden of delivering working software BEFORE MS has to give them the 
information needed to do so.
    Equally important, many API's do not, or at least MS could argue 
they do not, meet the narrow API middleware definitions.
    Second, MS is under no requirements from the PFJ to release 
technical information on their propritary file formats. Formats 
like.doc, .xls and .ppt form the core or (respectively) Word, Xcel 
and PowerPoint.
    MS's productiveity software monopoly remians wholly unchallnged 
in the PFJ as result of not opening these formats.
    Finally, MS ``broke'' it's own OS before in order to 
prevent competitors'' systems from working. This references the 
Caldera v. Microsoft case in which MS was found to have rigged 
MS-DOS to prevent a compeitors DR-DOS from running 
middleware applications without getting errors. The PFJ has nothing 
in it to stop such behavior from occuring again. In a monopoly 
setting if MS tweaks their OS to not run competitors software most 
people will assume there is an issue with the competiution since 
``every thing else'' runs right on MS's operating systems.
    The PFJ fails to do the very things an anti-trust settlement 
should do-either break up a monopoly or else restrain the 
monopoly in such as way to create competition. From a philosophical 
sense, the PFJ fails becuase it fails to deliver the kind of 
compeitive free market environment that gives the most benefit to 
consumers and instead aloows a single compnay to define for the 
conusmer what is progress and innvoation.
    The settlement must be rejected in its current form.
    Sincerly,
    Craig Fisher



MTC-00017499

From: Jason Shupe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea . . . Let me count the 
ways. First it isn't harsh enough to even count as a slap on the 
wrist. Secondly it sends the wrong message. Thirdly it provides no 
remedy to any of the hundreds of companies who have been damaged or 
destroyed by Microsoft. Fourthly because the punishment is so weak 
it fails to discourage further evil by Microsoft.
    Fifthly it actually helps Microsoft to cement it's monopoly by 
giving it entrance to schools which have traditionally been the 
realm of Apple. Both you and I have a limited amount of time, so 
I'll suspend my counting of the ways at this point.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Shupe



MTC-00017500

From: D Scott Grove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should 
become a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops 
to an acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's 
competitors is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft 
product lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00017502

From: Ned Brush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am a Computer Engineer who has used both Microsoft and Linux 
operating systems. I feel more stringent limitations should be 
placed upon Microsoft. I feel the current proposed settlement still 
gives Microsoft too much room to exercise their overwhelming power.
    It seems silly to me that the U.S. Department of Justice would 
so willingly accept any proposal generated by Microsoft. There 
appear to be many loop holes within the settlement that will only 
continue to allow Microsoft to crush competition. I would feel more 
comfortable with a settlement that had input from experts with a 
technological background, including Microsoft competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Brush



MTC-00017503

From: Matt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Judge Kollar-Kotelly and whom it may concern,
    I fear the Microsoft antitrust trial is deeply misunderstood, by 
the prosecution and the public at large. The consequences could be 
dire if a settlement is reached too early and in Microsoft's favor. 
This case has a lot in common with the trials of the railroad 
monopolies. By their end, public infrastructure in the form of 
superhighways and was at hand. People no longer depended on the 
railroads as the only means of transportation cross country, and 
federally funded interstate roads provided an alternative to moving 
people and goods only by tracks. The introduction and assistance of 
cross country roads from the government helped resist the price 
fixing from the railroads and gave people a choice. Ultimately that 
choice resulted in heightened interstate commerce and heavy 
population of the west coast of the United States.
    Like the railroad companies, closed source operating system 
companies will always gravitate towards monopolistic unified 
control. This is in part because of the difficulty of building a new 
operating system

[[Page 26418]]

infrastructure (building a new set of cross country tracks) and 
partially because it lowers the parent companies costs. Any remedy 
must be ongoing until the United States congress sees fit to address 
the cost of building, obtaining, or securing a open source software 
infrastructure.
    Any assistance from the government helps drive back the very 
real market force of fear of obsolescence, which helps repair the 
psychological damage caused by previous competition being wholly 
futile. Compare the argument, ``why should I buy a car when 
there are plenty of trains and their are no roads'' to the 
modern application obsolescence quandary, ``Why should I buy an 
operating system when there are no applications, and Windows is 
free?'' (Windows is not free, but that is the public 
perception).
    Like moving goods, only when people can choose to manipulate 
information in the fashion which proves most efficient for them will 
the free market flourish. At the least, Microsoft license terms and 
prices must be predictable and uniform for however long it takes for 
a federal infrastructure to be made readily available for use by 
Americans. Then the market can choose once again.
    Thank you for your time.
    Matthew Newhall
    President of LILUG
    Long Island Linux Users Group
    [email protected]
    http://lilug.org
    1750 Yale Ct
    Wantagh NY 11793



MTC-00017504

From: Seth Buckley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 23, 2002
    Dear Sirs:
    I do not believe that the Microsoft settlement, in its current 
state, will provide adequate recompense to those injured by the 
anti-competitive behavior exhibited by Microsoft.
    From the time Microsoft was found to be monopolistic until 
today, their behavior has not changed. I only need to point to 
Microsoft's proposed settlement for their class action suit. What 
other company would seek to give schools the software which caused 
the suit to begin with?
    I firmly believe that regulation of Microsoft's practices with 
strict penalties for non-compliance is the only solution which will 
stop them.
    Thank you for your time,
    Seth Buckley
    Raleigh, NC



MTC-00017505

From: Ben Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses.
    This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If 
a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit 
from those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general.
    To a more detailed point, there is no provision against 
Microsoft's non-documented ``closed'' file formats. One 
thing that will force a user into using one certain program over 
another is a closed format information. Let the application that 
uses that data be the divining point, not the format of the 
information.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Wilson
    Systems Designer
    CORVUS
    Turn Process into Profit
    2200 Ampere Drive
    Louisville, KY 40299
    (502) 214.4359 direct line
    (502) 515.1920 fax
    http://www.corvusdigital.com



MTC-00017506

From: Helen C. O'Boyle (091)HCOA(093)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: Helen C. O'Boyle [ASI]
    Greetings,
    I am writing to note my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
remedies in the MS anti-trust case. I am a consultant who works as a 
software developer, network support engineer, educator and writer. 
My customer base generally consists of smaller organizations and/or 
individuals.
    I am a Microsoft fan. I use their products daily, recommend them 
to customers, have an equity stake in the corporation and am a 
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and Developer. At the same 
time, I recognize that the company has occasionally overstepped its 
bounds in its enthusiasm to be at the top of the charts, and that 
enough people take substantial offense at this that unless SOMETHING 
is done to put an end to the arguments, the industry (and the 
government) will waste tremendous amounts of resources pursuing 
Microsoft without accomplishing anything. I therefore feel that some 
degree of remedy that discourages anti-competitive behavior while 
not constraining Microsoft's ability to add new, innovative 
functionality to its products would be beneficial to both Microsoft 
and the other parties involved in this legal proceeding, so that all 
concerned can stop spending money and intellectual capital on this.
    Unfortunately, I cannot support the proposed remedy as written, 
for a variety of reasons both in regards to exact content, and in 
regards to the philosophical approach it seems to be trying to take. 
One specific clause of the remedy document with which I personally 
take issue is:
    III. Prohibited conduct
    D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for 
Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment 
to the Court, Microsoft shall 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. 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. In the case of a new version 
of a Windows Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by 
this Section III.D shall occur in a Timely Manner.
    The reasons I take issue with this directive are:
    1. IMPRECISE SPECIFICATION OF COST. The directive does not 
specify a cost for this information. It is well known that MS 
provides access to key technologies, including Windows program 
source code itself (the MS Crown Jewels, to hear them speak of it) 
to its most significant customers. What if MS decides to limit 
access to the materials specified in (D), by requiring that 
companies spend $200,000/yr on MS products before they can have 
access to this material, or by charging $50,000 for it? Smaller 
shops, not having the $ to invest in procuring details of API's that 
may or may not be useful in their development efforts, would be 
squeezed out of access to these details, thus limiting MS'' 
potential competition to a ``short list'' of big 
businesses. (Tell me, did the AOL lobbyists, Sun and Red Hat jointly 
recommend this clause that carefully omitted the cost of the API 
information? It seems to me that it could unfairly provide a near-
monopolistic advantage to those large companies at the expense of 
smaller ones like mine, due to a significant financial barrier of 
entry to the competitive information.)
    2. IMPRECISE SPECIFICATION OF WHAT MS SOFTWARE IS SUBJECT TO 
THESE CONSTRAINTS. It leaves the door open for MS to define the 
boundary between Middleware and applications anywhere it chooses. 
So, Microsoft will use its low-level knowledge of Windows internals 
to build middleware-like functions into applications themselves, 
instead of in a separate middleware layer, and insist that those 
mechanisms which are part of the applications are protected as 
application source code, not part of the OS or

[[Page 26419]]

middleware. Even worse, if they embed middleware into the operating 
system itself, the API's that communicate between the lower levels 
of the OS, and the former middleware become no longer subject to 
disclosure.
    3. IMPRECISE SPECIFICATION OF TIMELINESS. The text states that 
the obligations ``shall occur in a Timely Manner''. Who 
will determine what a ``Timely Manner'' is, and how long 
(and how much government/taxpayer money) will it take to do so, when 
Microsoft puts off providing the info? I believe that there needs to 
be a hard-and-fast deadline stated in the proposed remedy, that is 
not open for debate/re-interpretation later. For example, a more 
specific statement might be, ``no later than the last major 
beta test release of any Windows Operating System product/update, 
and no later than 90 days prior to the final release of that Windows 
Operating System product/update, whichever is earlier''. To get 
around the restriction in the original proposed remedy, Microsoft 
could release the ``last major beta test release'' the DAY 
before the final product is available for sale, thus giving its 
applications groups multiple months of head-start in using new API 
information, before third parties can incorporate the new API 
information in their own applications. In addition to nailing down 
the time limit involved, the remedy should recognize the ability for 
MS to change these API's via ``Service Packs'' or 
``Updates'' to the Windows Operating System, and 
explicitly include the changes that result from those updates in 
this remedy-or things will start to slip through the cracks 
without being disclosed, as the court intends.
    Notice that the common thread here is IMPRECISE, because it is 
that lack of precision that will render this portion of the remedy 
at best ineffective and at worst unenforceable. We've seen over and 
over again during this case that interpretation of even the most 
unambiguous statements is cause for debate by one side or the other. 
There's thus ample incentive to try to make the remedy as specific 
as possible, and as non-open to multiple interpretations as 
possible.
    In regards to the philosophical approach that this proposed 
remedy seems to take. . . . Really, I (and many others in 
the tech community) want to see a remedy that resolves this issue 
for the forseeable future, because it's a distraction. That so much 
of this remedy appears to specifically address the browser wars, 
which Microsoft won years ago, is unfortunate. Microsoft has already 
conquered that territory with a superior product, and most savvy 
users wouldn't run any browser on the Windows platform other than 
Microsoft's. I'm sorry if that makes AOL's investment in Netscape a 
bad call on their part, but it's a fact of life that bad investments 
sometimes happen in business (especially lately, in anything related 
to the Internet!).
    I truly believe that full disclosure of Windows and middleware 
API's, and how to use them, will go a long way toward preventing 
something similar from happening in the future, in another 
application domain. With disclosure, third parties will have the 
same access to timesaving pre-built functions that Microsoft's 
internal application developers have, and it'll be that much more 
challenging for Microsoft to produce an application that is leaps 
and bounds, months or even years, ahead of its competition, leaving 
the competition as far back in the dust as Microsoft left Netscape 
several years ago. It's still quite doable, but the bar would be 
raised. A company being challenged to succeed based on innovative 
uses of intellectual property is just the thing to create wins for 
consumers, and thus for the industry at large. The FUTURE, not hand-
wringing over the past and trying to make something up to AOL and/or 
Sun that realistically cannot be made up at this point, and which 
was at least in part a problem to them because of their own 
suboptimal strategic decision-making, is what the remedy should be 
about. Thank you for considering my comments on this matter,
    Helen C. O'Boyle
    Consultant
    Kent, WA



MTC-00017507

From: Devin Carraway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft antitrust settlement. I make these comments as a software 
engineer with 17 experience in the field, having developed software 
for many applications, including Microsoft's Windows, Apple's 
Macintosh OS, Linux and other flavors of UNIX. These comments relate 
to the Proposed Final Judgement (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm) in US v Microsoft. I urge rejection and abandonment of 
the proposed final judgement, as an ineffective instrument which 
will have make no perceptible improvement to the state of 
competition in the relevant computer software industries, while 
potentially leaving Microsoft in a position of still greater power 
than without the settlement. I further suggest that at the behest of 
the current presidential administration, the prosecution in this 
case is being made (directly or indirectly) to deliberately scuttle 
a successful case brought against this monopolist.
    This settlement is almost perverse in its empowerment of the 
convicted party to dictate the details of its own 
``punishment.'' Microsoft will be left in a stronger 
position as a consequence of this, free in most cases to selectively 
exempt itself from enforcement the prohibitions levied by the 
judgement.
    The settlement does not even adequately address in its 
particulars the relevant list of operating systems in existence 
today-for example, exempting the most popular Microsoft 
operating systems, the Windows 95, 98 and ME series, from the 
definition of ``Windows Operating System Product.'' It 
also excludes likely future avenues of exploitation in other sectors 
of the computer industry, most notably the mobile and embedded 
computing sectors, by ignoring all MS products in these areas, and 
consequently exempting them from defense, even in this settlement's 
inadequate and ineffectual fashion, from Microsoft monopoly 
practices, both within and without.
    The settlement poses a particular threat by leaving Microsoft in 
a stronger position than ever with respect to some of its most 
serious potential long-term competition, that of the Open Source 
movement and its products. This movement frequently arises from 
academic and hobbyist circles; I find it highly improbable that 
Microsoft would willingly acknowledge these independent engineers 
when exercising ``its sole judgement'' of fitness to 
receive API information as dictated by the proposed jugement. 
Microsoft has also in the past used cooperation with the Open Source 
movement as justification to discriminate against ISVs and OEMs, and 
would be free to continue to do so.
    The settlement ignores completely Microsoft's application file 
formats, e.g. those used by the Microsoft Office productivity suite, 
despite Microsoft's historical use of these formats to advance its 
monopoly position.
    Finally, and more generally, this settlement relies upon 
historical ignorance of Microsoft's practices-the antitrust 
case arose in part through their violation of the 1994 consent 
decree regarding these practices. Microsoft has displayed utter 
contempt and disregard for restriction of its behavior by the courts 
or the US Dept. of Justice, conduct agreements or not, and will in 
my estimation continue to do so under this settlement, under the 
shield of immunity afforded them by this agreement. It is profoundly 
illogical to award a convicted monopolist a settlement which amounts 
in all significant effects to a total capitulation of the 
prosecution's case.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Devin Carraway
    Software Engineer
    Berkeley, California



MTC-00017508

From: Porter, Marcus (NINDS)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to say that I believe the proposed settlement is not 
only inadequate, but will lead to more and greater abuses of the 
same sort as it is trying to address. Please consider Dan Kegel's 
essay on the matter (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html) as I 
believe it clearly defines the problems with the settlement.
    Thank you,
    Marcus Porter



MTC-00017509

From: Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea!
    Stewart B Lone
    [email protected]



MTC-00017510

From: Wang, Daniel
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:

[[Page 26420]]

    I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust suit. As a California resident 
I completely support the efforts of the California Attorney General 
to press ahead with antitrust suit in the face of a stunning retreat 
from victory by the US DOJ.
    Microsoft's antitrust violations are well documented in the 
Findings of Fact, and the proposed settlement is little more than a 
slap on the wrist that allows Microsoft to keep its ill-gotten gains 
and is full of loopholes that allow them to illegally maintain their 
monopoly.
    Specifically I would like to point out a flaw in Sections III.D 
and III.E which relate to disclosure of APIs and communications 
protocols ``to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs''. This 
complete fails to consider that much of the software that powers the 
Internet and one of the biggest competitors to Microsoft is free 
software written by individuals, non-profit foundations and 
government research laboratories. Apache, Samba, and BIND are three 
examples of such free software that need to interoperate with 
Microsoft and would be denied access to APIs and communications 
protocols under the settlement.
    I urge you to reject the settlement and seek stronger remedies.
    Daniel Wang
    Network Engineer
    Veridian Information Solutions
    Email [email protected]



MTC-00017511

From: Deron Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Deron Graham



MTC-00017512

From: Jeffrey Goff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:25pm
Subject: Comment on the Proposed Final Judgement
    Among other concerns, I am concerned with the definition of 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' in Part VI, pgh. 28 of 
the settlement. According to trade papers and various public 
comments, it is fairly apparent to me that Microsoft intends to 
migrate people away from Microsoft Java to the new ``Microsoft 
.NET'' api, which, while it is at least partially documented, 
is not mentioned in the definition of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product.''
    While the Final Judgement may have been written before the 
release of .NET, this is a major omission, as Microsoft has made it 
clear that platform developers are strongly encouraged to move to 
this middleware layer. This should be included within the current 
Middleware product.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jeffrey Goff,
    Software Engineer at Blackboard Inc.
    Jeffrey Goff, 



MTC-00017513

From: Hagerty, Edward (UK-London)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft's practices towards large users should 
be prohibited.
    The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses its 
products to OEMs, but not on how it licenses products to large users 
such as corporations, universities, or state and local goverments, 
collectively referred to as ``enterprises''. Yet 
enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-processor 
licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 consent decree in the 
earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for 
each desktop or portable computer which could run a Microsoft 
operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft software is 
actually installed on the affected computer. These agreements are 
anticompetitive because they remove any financial incentive for 
individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft software.
    Please do not let the settlement as it stands move forward. Why 
have so many found it reasonable to go to such lengths to comb over 
the remains of Enron, while at the same time letting Microsoft spend 
over 20 years manipulating the software market to their gain and 
their gain alone?
    Thank you,
    Ed Hagerty
    4287 Beltline
    Addison TX, 75001
    Owner, General Knowledge Corporation



MTC-00017514

From: Fyffe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft proposed settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
January 23, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. Although I am a 
Microsoft supporter, I think their heavy-handed marketing tactics 
needed to be tempered to protect the consumers rights. Now that a 
settlement is possible, I believe that the concessions agreed upon 
AND the one I added, will effectively allow other vendors to promote 
their own products and protect consumers.
    Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to not 
retaliate against software developers and computer makers who 
develop or promote non-Microsoft products. They have also agreed to 
document and disclose for use by their competitors interfaces that 
are internal to Windows operating system products.
    Futher, I suggest microsoft be required to support by toll-free 
telephone all of their products for 6 months after purchase and 6 
months after each upgrade. And Microsoft should be required to offer 
continuing support toll-free for the reasonable annual fee of $25 
(indexed for inflation).
    These stipulations are more than fair and will ultimately be in 
the best interest of the American public. Especially the one I 
added. Please finalize the settlement and I thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    James Theodore Fyffe
    3506 San Luis Street
    Tampa, FL 33629
    813-837-1382



MTC-00017515

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    I am OPPOSED to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement neither 
fully redresses the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor 
inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement seem 
to only formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none 
will effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current 
monopoly position in the operating system market. This is especially 
troublesome in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does NOTHING to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are NO provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the FUTURE 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of our criminal justice system. If a person or 
organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts 
and then receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that 
they cannot commit those acts again, they have still benefited from 
their illegal acts. That is NOT justice, not for the victims of 
their abuses and not for the American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to

[[Page 26421]]

reach an unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that 
is not corrected is compounded and, if the Court is perceived to be 
wrong, then faith in the Court as the instrument of justice is 
diminished.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce D Burnaman
    1310 Bass Drive
    Woodstock, GA 30189



MTC-00017516

From: Ted Halmrast
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    The Microsoft Settlement is an absolute failure on the part of 
our government to take to task a known monopolist. Microsoft has 
repeatedly throughout its career demonstrated unethical business 
practices including but not limited to the crushing of numerous 
competitors and introduction of a proprietary, rather than open 
standards-based, status quo for computing. Microsoft's monopolistic 
tendencies have done so much damage to the free market of software 
development that it is telling that the only products still around 
competing with Microsoft products are those given away for free 
under open source. They are effectively killing the technology 
industry by reducing the number of companies that can effectively 
compete. This is bad for the consumer because it reduces choice and 
innovation, this is bad for the worker because there are fewer jobs, 
and this is bad for the economy because there are fewer companies 
and innovative ideas being developed to raise the financial markets.
    Microsoft is a menace which must be dealt with before it can 
cause more damage.
    Thank you,
    Ted Halmrast
    Software Developer
    Shakopee, Minnesota, USA
    Republican
    [email protected]



MTC-00017517

From: Roy Stogner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to register my disappointment at the proposed Final 
Judgement settlement in the U.S. v. Microsoft anti-trust case. The 
most glaring deficiency of the proposed settlement, of course, is 
that it is utterly ineffectual at even elaborating on the existing 
legal restrictions that antitrust law places on Microsoft. Doubtless 
the DoJ has been flooded with explanations of these problems, but I 
refer you to Dan Kegel's excellent essay on the subject (already 
submitted as a Tunney act comment, and archived at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html) as the most intelligent 
elaboration of the settlement's loopholes and problems which I have 
seen. Because Microsoft has a record of finding such technical 
loopholes to legal restrictions (or, failing that, ignoring the 
restrictions outright), it is my belief that the proposed settlement 
will do nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing it's current 
use of the Windows monopoly to maintain and extend that monopoly 
market share through illegal licensing and exclusionary agreements. 
In order to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's control over 
monopoly software products in the future, nothing short of uniform 
licensing for all it's products will suffice. Microsoft must not be 
allowed to license it's products differently to different customers, 
because even in the most benign cases of such special licensing it 
has and will continue to hold special pricing and special allowances 
as a bully's stick with which to control the behavior of other 
software and hardware companies. When I can get a Windows license 
via Dell computer more cheaply than I can get it from a retail 
store, I am coerced into buying from Dell (and other major PC 
assemblers), and they in turn must agree to whatever illegal 
restrictions Microsoft imposes or risk their very survival. 
Microsoft is aware of this power they have, and they use it. It must 
be removed. Microsoft must be required to release it's software at a 
constant price for any customer, OEM or individual, and they must be 
prevented from allowing any restrictions on the use or resale of 
that software beyond what is allowed by copyright law. Nothing less 
will suffice to prevent the continued illegal exploitation of their 
market position. Even this restriction is necessary but not 
sufficient; it should be added to the proposed settlement and should 
not replace it.
    There is one thing that I feel must be added to Mr. Kegel's 
comments, which in his essay was completely absent: even if the 
proposed settlement were completely free from loopholes, it would be 
insufficient. Microsoft repeatedly broke both U.S. law and court 
orders, and has profited to the extent of tens of billions of 
dollars and dozens of destroyed and crippled competitors in the 
process. If the only punishment they face is a set of restrictions 
designed to make the continuation of these acts harder, then they 
really have not been punished at all. The settlement against 
Microsoft must ``deny to the defendant the fruits of its 
statutory violation'', or it does not act as a disincentive to 
further violations at all.
    The most direct way of enacting such a punishment is simply to 
fine Microsoft at a level commensurate with their criminal gains. 
Fortunately, Microsoft holds a cash (and cash equivalents) reserve 
of over thirty billion dollars, and so such a fine could be levied 
without requiring any business-disrupting liquidation on their part. 
Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated that they are motivated by 
money and not by the law; they will cease illegal behavior once it 
becomes financially unwise, and not a moment sooner.
    Roy Stogner



MTC-00017518

From: John Bittenbender
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    The current settlement against Microsoft is totally unacceptable 
to me as both an everyday computer user and a tax-payer. I would 
like to see stronger measures brought against Microsoft with strict 
and close supervision of the company to verify that it is complying 
with the mandates brought against it. Please do not allow Microsoft 
to get off easy by performing philanthropic acts that will only 
extend its monopoly by distributing its products for free to 
schools.
    I urge you to reconstruct the settlement against Microsoft in 
such a way that it is fair an foolproof, without loop-holes and lack 
or foresight.
    Thank You,
    John Bittenbender
    Exario Networks



MTC-00017519

From: David Kramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software engineer with 18 years'' experience using or 
developing software for Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I'd 
like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. 
Microsoft. I am concerned that the Proposed Final Judgement will not 
be effective in stopping Microsoft from illegally maintaining its 
monopoly. Specifically, I am most concerned that no part of the 
Proposed Final Judgement obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    I believe that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, and 
would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems. The Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, 
and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    Thank you,
    David Kramer



MTC-00017520

From: Sean Porth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:42pm
Subject: Micrpsoft Settlement
    I don't have much to say, due to my lack of writing skills. But 
I can say please do not let this monopoly go unpunished, the 
settlement as it stands does not hurt Microsoft as it should. Simply 
put they broke the law and they should be punished, just as any 
other violator of any of our laws should. -
    Sean Porth
    System Admin
    Tortus Technologies
    www.tortus.com
    413-788-5080



MTC-00017521

From: Tom Mensch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement does not do enough. It is also critical 
that Microsoft also open up their proprietary file formats to allow 
compitition to their Office product. There can be no true 
compitition until users have an actual choise of what operating 
system they use. For example, most business users are required to 
use Microsoft Word to view

[[Page 26422]]

and create documents. If it is a standard that business people use 
Microsoft products to communicate then the file formats should be 
governed by standards commities like other communication standards.
    Thank you,
    Tom Mensch
    Oakland CA, 94618



MTC-00017522

From: Eric Allison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my displeasure at the proposed 
settlement of the case against Microsoft. I feel that, based on the 
merits of the case and previous judgments, a ruling more in line 
with the proposal by the 9 states dissenting states is appropriate.
    Especially bothersome is the penalty for non-compliance and the 
loopholes (such as secure software) that are glaringly apparent. The 
penalty should be real-like forcing them to open up source 
code, as proposed by the dissenting states. A real penalty is more 
likely to ``encourage'' the desired behavior-I know 
this personally from my experiences as a child!
    Sincerely,
    Eric Allison
    Stanford, CA



MTC-00017523

From: Barry Rountree
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:26pm
Subject: Tunney Act comments AGAINST proposed settlement
    Dear Sir or Ma'am,
    I would like to register my opposition to the propsed Microsoft 
settlement with the DOJ. If for no other reason, allowing Microsoft 
to hide API's at their sole discretion based on their unreviewed 
claim of a possible security risk is a model of worst practices. The 
market moved beyond this years ago. Please do not allow a change in 
the White House to impede the just resolution of this case.
    Respectfully,
    Barry Rountree
    Software Engineer
    San Diego, CA
    (858) 509-0993
    [email protected]



MTC-00017524

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    I am an American citizen and a long-time beneficiary of 
Microsoft products, and I believe as strongly as I have ever 
believed anything that what you have been doing to this company is 
wrong. It was wrong to have brought this suit in the first place. It 
was wrong for any judge to have ever found them guilty of anything, 
and it would be a grave injustice for the Department of Justice to 
impose a penalty of any kind.
    Microsoft's only ``crime'' was to be too good at what 
it does. I use Windows 2000 every day (in fact I am using it right 
now), and I can't imagine how different my life would have been the 
last 20 years if Microsoft had never existed or hadn't been as 
successful as it is. The only thing you are doing in persecuting 
these people, (and make no mistake, it is people you are 
persecuting. The company name may be Microsoft but all Microsoft is 
is a whole lot of people pursuing their lives and their careers to 
the best of their abilities), is making my life and the lives of 
millions of Americans who have come to rely on Microsoft products 
more expensive and more difficult.
    How dare you be so condescending as to believe that I need your 
``protection'' from these people? The only thing I need 
protection from is a government that continues to usurp more and 
more power while increasingly dictating how the lives of its 
citizens should be led.
    Start doing your legitimate job of protecting my individual 
rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, and 
stop persecuting some of the most productive, most moral people on 
earth; the owners, managers and employees of the Microsoft 
Corporation.
    Russell W. Shurts
    19031 E. Progress Lane
    Centennial, CO 80015-4862
    H-303-690-6542
    W-303-416-1087
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017526

From: Rich Morin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been working in the computing field for a little more 
than three decades. When I entered the field, IBM ``owned the 
waterfront'', making it essentially impossible for any 
competition to thrive. Microsoft now holds that position, with even 
more market share than IBM held back then.
    This is clearly a bad situation for the computing industry. 
Microsoft is able to dominate the field, while producing mediocre 
and dangerous (e.g., unreliable and insecure) software. They also 
use their power to discourage standardization efforts that would 
allow more competition. I am not well versed in the legal aspects of 
this case, so I will not try to suggest the exact shape of the 
settlement. Please count me as an opponent of the current proposal, 
however; it is FAR too lenient.
    Yours, Rich Morin
    email: [email protected]; phone: +1 650-873-7841
    http://www.cfcl.com/rdm-my home page, resume, etc.
    http://www.cfcl.com/Meta-The FreeBSD Browser, Meta 
Project, etc.
    http://www.ptf.com/dossier-Prime Time Freeware's DOSSIER 
series
    http://www.ptf.com/tdc-Prime Time Freeware's Darwin 
Collection



MTC-00017527

From: Christopher LaVeglia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I believe that Microsoft's EULA is unfair in that it prevents me 
from implementing ``best of breed'' solutions. 
Specifically, it prevents me from using microsoft applications on a 
competing operating system. Furthermore the EULA allows Microsoft to 
audit my personal system, to ensure compliance.
    Christopher M. LaVeglia



MTC-00017528

From: HILL, WILLIAM
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any settlement that does not include both a breakup of Microsoft 
and harsh fines is inadequate to protect general computing in the 
United States. Microsoft has shown the way to abuse programing's 
natural tendency toward standardization of code and interface. They 
have done nothing that others can not and will not do unless sound 
financial disincentives are offered.



MTC-00017529

From: Ben Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    To a more detailed point, there is no provision against 
Microsoft's non-documented ``closed'' file formats. One 
thing that will force a user into using one certain program over 
another is a closed format information. Let the application that 
uses that data be the divining point, not the format of the 
information.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Wilson
    admin-thelocust.org
    [email protected]

[[Page 26423]]



MTC-00017530

From: T Carey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a technology user I have been following the Microsoft legal 
issues from the very beginning. Overall I see the litigations 
against Microsoft to have limited merit and it is time to put the 
current case to rest. The ongoing nature of this case is detrimental 
to the technology industry as well as the consumer. A swift and fair 
conclusion to the current issues would be a great benefit to all 
involved.
    It is time that our country stops punishing people and the 
companies for which they work for doing a good job. With foreign 
competition and our weak economy companies that are innovative and 
try to make products that are easy to use should be praised not 
punished.
    Thank you
    Thomas A Carey



MTC-00017531

From: Alon Harpaz
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:40pm
Subject: Re: Open Letter by Dan Kegel of Los Angeles, CA
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    This e-mail is to confirm my support and signature on a letter 
written by Mr. Kegel, concerning the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft in the anti-trust litigation.
    I would especially like to voice my concern regarding the 
publication and release of Windows API information. The proposed 
settlement makes no attempt to provide this information to the 
general public. This contradicts Microsoft's stand that Windows is a 
de-facto standard in Information Technology, as it does not allow 
all who wish to develop programs for Windows to do so at their 
discretion.
    In addition, such hiding prevents others from developing 
competing alternatives to Windows that would run applications 
designed for Windows.
    Thanks, Alon Harpaz
    Ashland, MA
    Electrical Engineer at Dover Instrument Corporation



MTC-00017532

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is detrimental 
to the public interest and that it is a bad idea.
    Darren Pruitt



MTC-00017533

From: Jacob Sayles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am officially opposed to the Microsoft settlement. It does not 
punish them for breaking the law and it's efforts to prevent such 
abuse of power in the future are misguided. I too would like to see 
and end to this case, but this settlement is not the correct course 
of action.
    Thank you,
    Jacob Lynn Sayles
    6541 20th Ave NE
    Seattle, WA 98115



MTC-00017534

From: Clancy, Mark L.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, I am writing 
to express my concern over the proposed Final Judgement against 
Microsoft in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 
98-1232.
    The proposed terms of settlement do not provide sufficient 
safeguards that specifications for Microsoft platforms and 
middleware will be publicly available to me as a software developer 
in the IT department of a large corporation that is not a software 
vendor. It's important that such documentation is available to the 
software development community as a whole, not just selected 
software vendors. The corporate IT infrastructure I support is 
large, diverse, and largely internally developed. The quality and 
value of our services is driven by the availability of valid 
technical software information, just as for a software vendor.
    Section III.D of the proposed Final Judgement states 
``...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''. While MSDN is an 
invaluable resource to software developers, I often find 
dissembling, biased, propagandistic, and coercive commentary in 
place of straightforward, unbiased technical information in its 
articles. Also, Microsoft is notorious for reorganizing its content 
to be consistent with Microsoft's market interests, deprecating and 
concealing legacy documentation. MSDN is a fine resource, but I am 
skeptical that without oversight, it could easily become simply 
another marketing vehicle for Microsoft.
    Unbiased, detailed technical specifications for the Windows 
platform and its interfaces are far more helpful than market-
generated literature in IT infrastructure strategy and development, 
especially when the market is distorted, as in this case. Publishing 
this information, actively monitoring its quality, ensuring it is 
valid and usable, and making it widely available to software 
developers in every setting is in the public interest.
    While it may be politically expedient to settle this case as 
quickly as possible, it is in the interest of the software 
development community, the larger community of corporate software 
users, and of the public at large, to provide effective remedies 
which allow effective cooperation and competition in the software 
marketplace. Attorneys General of several states, including 
Minnesota, my home state, are agreed that the proposed Final 
Settlement is inadequate.
    Thank you for considering my position.
    Mark Clancy
    Senior Analyst/Programmer
    Mayo Clinic
    Laboratory, Pathology and Extramural Applications Division
    [email protected]
    (507) 266-4489



MTC-00017535

From: Richard Turk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I OPPOSE the proposed final judgement. It is inadequate. I just 
read through the proposed settlement, and I have listed some 
comments below. I acknowledge that these comments could be 
considered nitpicky, but bear in mind that Microsoft does not have a 
history of operating in ``good faith'': they will attempt 
to exploit any weakness or ambiguity. Also, remember that time and 
money are on Microsoft's side: even if they are ultimately held 
accountable for a breach, it might take many months and many dollars 
to push the suit through the courts. The language of this agreement 
must be sufficiently strong and clear that violations can be 
determined quickly (summary judgement) by the trial court. 
Otherwise, Microsoft will be able to use the intervening time to 
extend its monopoly and suppress competition.
    Problem 1. The term ``Windows Operating System'' is 
inadequate: it omits a large variety of products currently available 
or under development. Also, Microsoft could rename a future product 
to avoid this definition. (e.g. Windows CE is now PocketPC; the XBox 
could become an exempt computing platform)
    Remedy 1. The anti-monopoly restrictions should be placed on 
*all* Microsoft products, both hardware and software.
    Problem 2. The settlement allows Microsoft to choose which 
companies can gain access to their API's and protocol 
specifications. This will permit Microsoft to withhold information 
from Open Source or volunteer programmers, thus suppressing 
competition and consumer choice.
    Solution 2. Microsoft should publish API's and protocol 
specifications publicly, for all developers; the notion of 
``legitimate business interest'' should be dropped.
    Problem 3. The definition of ``bona fide joint 
venture'' is not given. Without a clear indication, Microsoft 
can bottle up suits in court.
    Solution 3. Provide a very narrow, explicit definition.
    Problem 4. Section VI(U) Gives Microsoft discretion as to what 
comprises a ``Windows Operating
    System Product''. Microsoft could make unreasonable claims 
of exclusion and then fight in court, thus delaying fair 
competition.
    Solution 4. Either remove this section, or let the Technical 
Committee decide what comprises the OS.
    I could come up with more specifics, but I'm sure others have 
done a more thorough

[[Page 26424]]

job. Also, it might help to create a punishment for ``parole 
violation'': if Microsoft loses a certain number or percentage 
of lawsuits relating to specifics of this judgement, then there 
would be automatic and severe monetary penalties and additional 
restrictions. This might deter them from using the courts as a 
delaying tactic.



MTC-00017536

From: Kendall Whitlatch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement offered by the DOJ does not 
adequately address Microsoft's ability to act in a monopolistic 
manner. There are far too many loopholes and terms have been too 
narrowly defined. If this settlement is implemented, I believe that 
we will see another scenario like this last one where MS acts within 
the legal boundary of the settlement, but still monopolizes the 
industry.
    I urge you to review Dan Kegel's petition and implement those 
fixes he addresses. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Best regards,
    Kendall Whitlatch
    mailto:[email protected]
    14801 Kennedy Place NE
    Duvall, WA 98019
    425-844-4094



MTC-00017537

From: Chris Kantarjiev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is ridiculously lenient. It seems like 
people keep forgetting that Microsoft was found GUILTY and that the 
verdict was AFFIRMED by the appeals court. All that is at issue now 
is their punishment. Letting them off with the proposed slap on the 
wrist would be a travesty, and would irreparably harm the entire 
computer industry.
    Microsoft must be punished severely. Their monopolistic and 
predatory practicies must be slapped down HARD so that this time 
they won't come back in a few years and start pulling the same 
tricks. Please don't cave in. Make this criminal corporation feel 
the pain of justice.
    Christopher Kantarjiev
    1530 Portola Avenue
    Palo Alto, CA 94306
    [email protected]



MTC-00017538

From: Jamie Dillon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Thanks for listening,
    My primary concern with the proposed Microsoft case solution is 
the idea of Microsoft flooding public schools with their software, 
as well as Windows-based hardware, as a penalty. Their suggestion 
here is typically disingenuous, and a bad plan. I've made a career 
in public schools, where we have the strength of a variety of 
platforms. The Justice Dept has made great strides in pursuing this 
long course.
    Thanks for the work.
    Jamie Dillon
    Jamie Dillon, speech pathologist, Gonzales Schools <*>
     http://
www.winepress.com/jd1.htm
    ``Did you ever see a wolf in spats?''-G. Marx



MTC-00017539

From: Russell Hemati
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I was originally very excited about a proposed settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft. I mainly thought it was a good idea 
since after having the crimes of the company upheld by an appeals 
court, I naturally assumed that this was the only way to keep the 
upper echelons of the company out of federal prison. Imagnie my 
surprise when I found out that the DOJ had lost their nerve in 
prosecuting the most illegal monopoly of all time.
    After reading the proposed settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft, I am convinced that it must be rewritten from the ground 
up. After 15 years of computer consulting, including developing for 
Windows as well as Linux and helping support those who develop on 
the Apple platform, I still do not consider myself to have mastered 
every nuance of systems integration-much less the computer 
market as a whole. I do, however, know enough to realize that 
regardless of how brilliant or qualified the lawyers who drafted 
this settlement are, they require more training in computer 
terminology and software engineering. They also require themselves 
to ask seriously-is this settlement There are numerous 
technical problems with this settlement, the most important being 
that it allows Microsoft to keep the monopoly it already has and at 
best attempts to limit the speed at which it aquires new monopolies. 
Having watched Windows XP turn into a way to market Microsoft's 
other products (usually offered at a loss) and the sale of the X-
Box-under- cost (as much as $100), it seems that any 
software company (and now with the X-Box-any hardware company) 
that does not have the ability to sell its products under cost or 
give them away for free while being kept profitable by inflating the 
prices of other products that often the consumer cannot refuse to 
buy-any company that cannot do this will not succeed. Even if 
they can (such as the possible exception of Java), because their 
``competitor'' is the company that they depend on to make 
the system that runs their program, they will not succeed because 
this ``competitor'' makes their system incompatible with 
yours while simultaneously offering their own alternative to your 
customers. Standard Oil was nailed to the wall for this, the 
proposed settlement is not just lenient-its SILENT!
    We are nearing the point when nobody, not even the government of 
the US, can stand up to Microsoft. The settlement is a joke, it 
doesn't do anything at all about the illegal monopoly Microsoft 
already has (a ruling upheld by the appeals court). No other 
criminal I know could settle this easily after already being 
declared guilty. No convicted bank robber would be told that he can 
keep his money and should just rob fewer banks per month.
    Also, when Microsoft asked for part of its settlement to include 
government mandated installation of its software in one of its few 
last competitor's main market (schools-Apple), it demonstrated 
its brazen practices. Any reasonable person should be able to 
realize the predatory nature of such a company. Please do not let 
the difficulties in the economy cloud this decision. Microsoft is a 
very valuable company-if you have any tech related mutual 
funds you probably own a piece of them anyway. They have managed to 
hire a great many intelligent and qualified people. Microsoft 
-can- compete in an open market. To say that they can't 
compete in an open market is to say that they haven't been, since 
they are indeed successful. One of the reasons that the software 
market is so bleak is because most of the incentive for creating and 
then profiting from software has been and is still being sucked dry 
by a company that will not stop until it is the -only- 
technology company. A free market cannot exist without competition. 
If the intention of the DOJ is to do their part in restoring the 
computer technology market, they cannot hide behind Microsoft.
    I am a capitalist. I believe in business both big and small. I 
also believe that we are a nation of laws. Because the DOJ is about 
to allow one of the most nefarious criminal entities to go free, it 
is in danger of presenting itself to history as only attempting to 
prosecute the little guy-the individuals and small companies 
while the big guy-the one who could influence their own 
pocketbooks with it success or demise-this one they are too 
scared to touch.
    You are the United States government. You are there to protect 
individuals and companies. You are there to protect our free market. 
Do your duty and protect us. Stop the Microsoft monopoly with more 
than this travesty. Make them give back what they illegally took 
from the people, the companies, and the market. Make them give back 
what they took from you-the DOJ-since you are 
undoubtedly one of their customers and have been suffering from lack 
of choice and poor quality. Do your duty. Make us all proud we 
elected your superiors.
    Russell Hemati



MTC-00017540

From: Jason File
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to complain that at present, the negotiated 
settlement does not permit software developers such as the Wine 
project to create the capability of running Windows applications on 
Linux. Only with this component included in the agreement will the 
settlement have a real effect on market competition. As it stands 
now, it is relatively toothless.
    Best wishes,
    Jason File
    Yale Law School



MTC-00017541

From: Steven Boothe

[[Page 26425]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sir/Ma'am, or to whom it may 
concern:
    My name is Steven Boothe and I am a citizen of the United States 
since birth. I currently reside in the beautiful state of 
California. I am writing because I just learned that I have the 
opportunity (expiring Monday, January 28) to air my comments (in 
accordance with the Tunney Act) on the justice and efficacy of the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement. For this privilege to engage the 
judicial system I am truly grateful to be a citizen of the United 
States of America. So for those that may be in a hurry, in short: I 
find this proposed settlement appalling and disgraceful. No I do not 
approve. I herewith cast my vote against this proposal, and for 
reference, respectfully request that the short-comings highlighted 
in the following paragraphs be rectified as my suggestion for how to 
adequately meet out justice and retain our country's dignity in this 
case. Here are the paragraphs of which stand out so clearly stated 
as the problems I whole heartedly agree need attention:
    ``The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgments specifically 
protect companies in commerce-organizations in business for 
profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic activities against ``competing'' 
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial 
vendors-computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The 
Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic 
world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein 
in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry.
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! emphasized content below !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    But Microsoft's greatest single threat on the operating system 
front comes from Linux-a non-commercial product-and it 
faces a growing threat on the applications front from Open Source 
and freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don't even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``. . .(c) 
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
. . .''
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! emphasized content above !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    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.''
    Hence: ``If this deal goes through as it is written, 
Microsoft will emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger 
than before.'' Please do not allow our tax dollars and 
dignified judicial system to be displayed as a wasted effort by 
leaving this proposed settlement in a status quo.
    (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/ pulpit/pulpit20011206.html)
    Thank you very much for your time,
    Steven Boothe
    A concerned husband, father, and computing professional.



MTC-00017542

From: Matt Jurach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The problems identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment 
can be summarized as follows:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product- but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box- 
operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are advertised as 
being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation- 
but prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents?
    This can scare away potential users.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once 
banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities 
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs 
-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems.
    This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Considering these problems, one must conclude that the Proposed 
Final Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence 
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. Therefore, the 
Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and should 
not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    A thorough and thoughtful propisition of remedies for the above 
issues has been assembled by Dan Kegel at:
    href=``http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ 
remedy2.html''>http:// www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html

[[Page 26426]]

    Thank you,
    Matt Jurach
    href=``mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00017543

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement is counter 
to the interests of the American public, deleterious to the American 
economy, and is not adequate, given the findings of fact in the 
trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and the spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices 
inhibit competition and reduce innovation, decreasing employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The findings of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a 
monopoly require strict measures which address not only the 
practices they have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent 
them from engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    I do not think that the proposed settlement is strong enough to 
prevent Microsoft from engaging in monopolistic behavior, both now 
and in the future.
    For more specific examples of deficiencies in the current 
proposed settlement, please refer to Dan Kegel's ongoing analysis 
at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Sincerely,
    Tim Vogt
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Sr. Software Engineer
    Tim Vogt
    [email protected]



MTC-00017544

From: Sam Nilsson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    this is inexusible in a ``democracy''. this is no 
democracy, this is a corporate controlled money state. only the 
money is represented. please do not settle with microsoft.
    BREAK THEM UP.
    Sam Nilsson
    Santa Cruz, CA 95060



MTC-00017545

From: Adam Goldstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my strong feelings on the Microsoft 
Settlement.
    I believe that Microsoft has illegally used its power to make 
itself into a monopoly by trying to quietly destroy competition. I 
believe that Microsoft should be split into two companies, one for 
the Windows operating system and related files, and one for Office 
software and other software, not only as a punishment for its 
illegal actions, but also to prevent such abuses in the future.



MTC-00017546

From: Michael McNeany
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TWIMC,
    I feel the proposed settlement redarding the Microsoft Anti-
Turst case is not effective enough.
    I feel that stronger regulations need to be imposed to force 
Microsoft to disclose information regarding file formats and their 
interoperability with the applications and furthermore, the 
operating system.
    Michael McNeany



MTC-00017547

From: Mick Crouch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am unhappy with the Microsoft Settlement.
    I feel that Microsoft has gotten off too easy. No significant 
changes will occur as a result of the proposed settlement.
    Mick Crouch



MTC-00017548

From: Bob Pesall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir/ma'am,
    I would like to add my disapproval to the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft corporation currently open for public comment. To 
resolve this situation with any monopoly still intact, and to leave 
the software industry unable to provide competition that might end 
such a monopoly is to do a disservice to consumers.



MTC-00017549

From: Andrew Haas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:30pm
Subject: Please Throw Out the Microsoft Settlement
    This is a letter appealing the government to not only throw out 
the Microsoft settlement, but further penalize Microsoft for its 
anti-competitive business practices and poor quality software. 
Microsoft has undermined the security of the United States, wasted 
billions of taxpayer dollars and gone against everything this 
country is founded upon. What is the foundation of the United 
States? What has made this country so great?
    If you were to ask me, I'd say it's the constitution of the 
U.S., the excellence of the people who founded this country, the 
commitment of the many men and women who have given their lives to 
make this a great country, and the principles they stand for.
    How does Microsoft violate these principles? By their first-to-
market business methodology, where they bring to market poor quality 
software and leverage their Windows monolopoly to become dominant, 
they stifle competition. In so doing, they have introduced software 
with security holes and software that requires constant fixes and 
upgrades. They waste the time of millions of people.
    What if the founders of the country, the writers of the 
constitution, brought it to market before it was ready? What if they 
said, ``Well, this is good enough?'' What if the people 
who fought in our world wars said, ``Well, we tried to be 
secure. We tried to make your country secure,'' while all the 
while leaving tons of security holes? What if our intelligence 
organizations did a slipshod job?
    The answer is our country would have fallen long ago to the 
forces that seek to undermine it.
    Why should we reject any settlement with Microsoft and further 
penalize the company to the full extent of the law:
    A) Microsoft's poor software quality has undermined national 
security.
    B) Microsoft's poor software quality has wasted billions of 
taxpayer dollars.
    C) Microsoft has shown no remorse, worse, only arrogance, and 
has never taken responsibility for its actions.
    D) Microsoft has created a marketplace where in order to 
compete, companies have to follow its model of producing poor 
quality products and rushing them to market too quickly.
    Let's look at each of these points more closely:
    A) Microsoft's poor software quality has undermined national 
security. Microsoft software has been shown to be extremely 
vulnerable to viruses and have numerous security holes. In addition, 
it has been shown to be bug-ridden and crash often. The news is 
filled with reports of problems. For example, a warship had its 
weapons systems offline for 5 hours due to a problem with Windows. 
Nuclear materials have been misplaced or ``lost'' due to 
bugs in Microsoft's database software. The NSA was infected by a 
virus that harmed its employees ability to communicate with each 
other.
    B) Microsoft's poor software quality has wasted billions of 
taxpayer dollars. As a professional software developer, I work with 
Microsoft products daily. Unfortunately there is no way around this, 
because my employers require it. I waste approximately an hour a day 
on slow software, bugs in software. I waste another hour due to 
incompatibilities in software and trying to work between Unix 
systems, which are used on the server side because they are stable, 
and Windows, which is used on the client side because of Microsoft's 
monopoly. If IT professionals in government waste an equal amount of 
time as I do, then Microsoft is costing the taxpayers billions of 
dollars.
    C) Microsoft has shown no remorse nor taken any responsibility 
for their actions. In testimony before the government, Microsoft has 
denied all the charges against them and made it sound like the 
government or the taxpayer is at fault. They have made few efforts 
if any to fix these problems. When Windows 2000 was released, Steve 
Ballmer made the statement, ``Windows is finally stable.'' 
Well what was it before? Microsoft was penalized by the government 
in the 1994 consent decree, but made no efforts to change their 
actions. Microsoft considers itself above the law.
    D) In order to compete with Microsoft, the entire software 
industry has made a habit of

[[Page 26427]]

rushing products to market before they are done. In addition, since 
products built upon buggy operating systems are themselves buggy, 
it's almost impossible to produce very stable software that runs on 
Windows operating systems. It's like trying to build a house on 
foundations of sand-when the sand shifts the house will fall. 
There are numerous examples of this- Lotus Notes, Corel, Sun 
Java-all of these products have had problems because they were 
built on a buggy operating system-Windows. The Solaris 
versions of Java have always been better than Windows, because 
Solaris is a much more stable operating system. So my plea to the 
government is this.
    If the founders of our country, and all the men and women who 
have given their lives to make this country the place it is had done 
their business the way Microsoft has, this country would have fallen 
long ago.
    Microsoft has undermined national security and wasted billions 
of dollars. It has created an anti-competitive environment where 
companies have to produce poor quality software to compete. It has 
made the computer industry much harder to work in and good quality 
solutions hard to implement.
    Please penalize Microsoft to the full extent of the law, as you 
would anyone who commits a crime against the people. Please do not 
let Microsoft's dominant position cloud your judgement. Please do 
the right thing.
    Thank you very much,
    Andrew Haas



MTC-00017550

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm very surprised that the decision to break up Microsoft was 
reversed. Until the OS division is separated from the other 
divisions of Microsoft, their de facto OS monopoly will continue to 
be leveraged to help them gain dominance of other markets. The 
currently proposed settlement does not sufficiently address the 
competition issues. Sincerely,
    Domenic Ippolito
    Engineering Manager
    e-Acumen, Inc.



MTC-00017551

From: Matthew Chastain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Chastain
    109 NW Broadway St Apt 4
    Bend, OR 97701-2640



MTC-00017552

From: P. Dworkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    The tentative settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit does not address the reasons Microsoft was found 
guilty of violating antitrust statutes and protects neither 
consumers nor businesses.
    I am strongly against the proposed settlement.
    Paul Dworkin
    [email protected];
    www.heyho.com;
    ftp.heyho.com
    79 Hancock, Somerville MA 02144
    617-625-4224
    Fax 508-519-0729



MTC-00017553

From: David Cutler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: U.S. Department Of Justice,
    I appreciate the right to speak on this issue, which I feel very 
strongly about. As a U.S. citizen, I believe I have a responsibility 
to defend the rights and freedoms we enjoy as Americans. The current 
settlement does not effectively prevent Microsoft from using its 
current monopoly in the desktop operating system market to create a 
monopoly in other markets. One obvious example is the browser 
market. I believe Microsoft should be required to offer a version of 
its operating systems which does not contain middleware software 
like Internet Explorer tied into the operating system.
    Also, Microsoft should be required to remove software from its 
operating system which causes incompatibilities with rival 
companies'' software. Microsoft should also be prevented from 
using its passport services in Windows XP to force users to use 
Microsoft technologies to access online services. I believe 
Microsoft's .NET program is their plan to completely control PC 
users'' access to the Internet and e-commerce.
    This is clearly a threat to computer users and competing 
companies. I reiterate that the currently settlement does not go far 
enough to limit and prevent Microsoft's anti-competitive and 
monopolistic behavior.
    Sincerely,
    David Cutler
    David J. Cutler
    (703) 242-3970
    [email protected]



MTC-00017554

From: Rick Silton
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my position which, in brief, is that the 
proposed final judgment against Microsoft will not adequately 
prevent Microsoft from abusing its monopoly power.
    There are many reasons such as those listed below, but 
ultimately it comes down to the fact that Microsoft is both the 
supplier of the monopoly operating system and a supplier of 
applications that use the operating system.
    The Proposed Final Judgment needs to be amended because: Hurts 
the not-for-profit competitors (Linux, Apache, etc.) Fails to remove 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on 
Windows.
    Requires that users of the APIs share their code with Microsoft. 
The APIs are needed to use the OS features but the OS vendor does 
not need to know how the applications work and so there is no need 
for Microsoft to have access to the code. This is especially true 
when they are also producing competing applications!!!
    The proposal for Microsoft to donate equipment to schools must 
be a joke-it doesn't punish Microsoft at all and in fact takes 
market share away from the competitors that Microsoft has been 
hurting.
    * API & Middleware definitions are too narrow.
    * It does not prevent Microsoft from intentionally 
sabotaging Windows applications, middleware, and development tools 
so that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems.
    Please take these comments into consideration-Microsoft 
has been doing anti-competitive behavior for many years and there is 
absolutely no reason to believe they will stop on their own. Their 
corporate culture is obviously to crush the competition with no 
regard for fair and reasonable business practices.
    Rick Silton
    2655 Fanieul Hall Ct
    Herndon, VA
    20171



MTC-00017555

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I do not think the Microsoft Settlement goes far enough to 
ensure that Microsoft's non-competative behavior will not be allowed 
to continue. Of the many problems I have with the settlement, I 
think the most

[[Page 26428]]

important is the barrier to applications. It is not enough to stop 
at opening APIs for middleware. APIs must also be opened for 
applications.
    While I am happy that the settlement makes an effort at keeping 
Microsoft from hindering the development of cross-platform 
middleware, it needs to ensure that there is a cost effective 
alternative to the Microsoft Windows operating system. By allowing 
Microsoft to keep its Windows APIs secret/undocumented, users who 
wish to use the vast majority of applications written for Intel-
Compatible PCs will still be forced to use Windows. The reason that 
most applications are written for Windows is that there was no 
viable alternative; if most developers wanted to be able to make a 
profit selling their products, Windows is the only operating system 
that has an installed base large enough for the application to have 
enough possible customers.
    The WINE project is an open-source, ongoing effort to create an 
environment that runs Windows applications under Linux, an open-
source, free operating system. It is already possible to run many 
Windows applications using WINE, but not all and not perfectly. The 
progress is slow because much of the necessary code is under lock 
and key at Microsoft. Because WINE is open source, all work done to 
make Windows applications run in Linux also benefits other operating 
systems, particularly UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems.
    Until Microsoft is forced to allow all developers access to its 
API and their full documentation, users who wish to use most 
applications written for Intel-compatible PCs will be forced to have 
a copy of Windows. Microsoft would rather keep this unfair advantage 
and not share the entire library of APIs, but be allowed to pick and 
choose. This is non-competative behavior. MIcrosoft can still be 
allowed to innovate with respect to the layout and functionality of 
its operating system without keeping other operating systems from 
running applications written for the Windows environment.
    Respectfully,
    Brett Barton
    Dublin, OH 43017
    Pricing Coordinator, Ashland Distribution Company



MTC-00017556

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs:
    I have thoroughly read the ``Proposed Final 
Judgement' (PFJ) in the United States vs. Microsoft, and would 
like to comment pursuant to the Tunney Act and its provisions for 
public comment.
    There are several points which I would like to make concerning 
the PFJ. First, I believe this proposal would still allow Microsoft 
to manipulate licensing agreements such that Windows applications 
would be unable to run on non-Microsoft operating systems(OSs). If 
OS users are not able to run Windows applications on an OS other 
than one of the flavors of Windows, this provides a Application 
Barrier to Entry to any OS wishing to provide a product in direct 
competition to Windows. Since the Windows OS and the applications 
running within it were determined by the Court to be distinct 
entities, it seems unfair that users couldn't choose to use one 
without the other.
    Secondly, being a software professional for the last 15 years, I 
have seen my share of Windows and non-Windows products. On several 
occasions during this period, a non-Windows solution would have been 
the clear favorite if we could have had open access to the structure 
and definition of the Windows Application Programming Interfaces 
(APIs). The language of the PFJ limits the disclosure of Windows 
APIs by defining the terms ``API'' and ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' such that Microsoft would be able to exclude APIs 
used by other application programs (not expressly in the 
``Microsoft Middleware'' definition). This would also 
prevent other application developers from being able to write 
applications to use these interfaces correctly, which would also 
prohibit competition.
    Lastly, the wording of the PFJ specifically omits other Intel-
based operating systems such as Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, 
Windows CE, Pocket PC, and the X-box. I don't understand why these 
systems should be allowed to appear under the radar of the 
Judgement, since many of the same applications which could run on 
other Windows environments could also run on these. Therefore, if 
Microsoft is allowed to produce applications which can run on these 
operating systems as well as the included Windows systems, aren't 
they able to gain an unfair advantage, since their applications are 
now by definition more universal? By excluding them and their APIs 
from the PRJ, aren't we allowing unfair competitive practices?
    These are the main issues I am in opposition with at this time. 
As I continue to digest all that this agreement encompasses, I may 
find more to mention.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Donald J Smith
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017557

From: JeepBoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is unacceptable. The Court 
found that Microsoft did indeed engage in anti-competitive 
practices. That being settled, the proposed remedy leaves much to be 
desired.
    I believe that the original idea of breaking the company up into 
three separate companies is the best solution.
    Thank you.
    Bill Nienaber
    Minneapolis, MN



MTC-00017558

From: Raul Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to comment on the judgement I've read at http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm:
    [1] While this judgement, if it had been issued some years ago, 
would probably have prevented the current set of problems involving 
microsoft and the computer industry, I don't see that this judgement 
will repair the damage which has been done.
    [2] While this judgment addresses some issues relevant to OEMS, 
ISV/IHV's, IAP/ICP's and End Users, it does not address issues of 
critical significance to software developers.
    When developing software, one must make many choices and 
decisions with long-lasting consequences. In general, this means 
that once a decision has been made it is not changed without good 
reason. Microsoft's unlawful actions mean that there have been good 
economic reasons to make development decisions which would otherwise 
violate good design practices.
    Resolving this issue will require documentation which is not 
generally available (and which may not exist) about Microsoft's 
operating system. It will also require dealing with issues raised by 
existing contracts and business arrangements with respect to 
software development tools and development environments. It will 
also require dealing with changes in software oriented training and 
business practices-changes which have been necessary for a 
business to survive in the face of Microsoft's market dominance.
    Software developers are the people who are technically literate 
in computer languages and who are responsible for creating 
applications which must run on an operating system. The proposed 
remedy does not address software development needs in supporting 
competitive operating systems.
    Failing to address the needs of software developers means this 
judgement cannot remove the barriers which microsoft has put in 
place with its unlawful actions. As software developers provide the 
software which which End Users, IAP/ICP's, ISV/IHV's, and OEMS, use 
on an operating system, it's extremely unlikely that any of these 
groups will experience economic relief from this judgement.
    I recommend this judgement be rejected in favor of one which 
will additionally provide remedies for software developers who 
develop software for Microsoft and/or non-Microsoft operating 
systems.
    Raul Miller



MTC-00017559

From: Joshua J. Berry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I do not think the Microsoft settlement is nearly harsh enough. 
Instead of attempting to correct the underlying issues (the 
anticompetitive practice), the settlement instead simply slaps 
Microsoft's hand with a fine they can easily shrug off. There will 
be no change in behavior from Microsoft after this settlement is 
implemented-none at all. All you're doing is giving Microsoft 
the opportunity to extend their monopoly. The whole idea behind the 
settlement is to stop these practices, and this settlement does 
nothing towards that end.

[[Page 26429]]

    Sincerely,
    Joshua J. Berry
    Student, Cal Poly State University
    Joshua J. Berry
    California Polytechnic State University
    San Luis Obispo, CA



MTC-00017560

From: David Goodwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a very bad idea. At 
most, the proposed terms will be a minor annoyance to Microsoft, and 
they will continue as they have in the past. What is being done to 
aid all those that were crushed by Microsoft's illegal acts? Simply 
saying that all will be fair from here on out is not enough, 
Microsoft has such a dominant position that competition in many 
areas will remain non-existent.
    David Goodwin



MTC-00017561

From: Peter Loron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case is a very bad choice. It will not punish Microsoft, 
it will instead give them an even larger market share and help push 
out one of their few competitors, Apple Computer.
    A much more fair solution would be to have Microsoft pay the 
billion dollar `fine' in cash to be used to buy 
equipment and software for schools from other companies, or some 
other worthy goal (paying down the National Debt, perhaps).
    Peter Loron



MTC-00017562

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:32pm
Subject: settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea. The government should not 
go soft on people or corporations that bend and manipulate U.S. laws 
in order to profit. No one is above the law.
    Diana Kedzierski



MTC-00017563

From: Nathaniel Cosgrove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the proposed settlement with Microsoft not only 
inadequate, but insulting. It provides too many loopholes through 
which Microsoft can jump to effectively circumvent most, if not all 
of the provisions set forth by the settlement. For instance, in 
section III(J), there is a provision for Microsoft to keep all 
security APIs secret. An easy way to circumvent this is to add 
security features into every API. Please note that Microsoft 
recently announced an initiative to focus more on security; a move 
which would suggest that they are already planning such a strategy.
    In the past, Microsoft has shown considerable ingenuity in 
circumventing such measures. For instance, the integration of 
Internet Explorer into Windows to circumvent the ``Consent 
Decree'' shows their willingness to abide by the 
``spirit'' of such an agreement.
    Please do not allow this settlement to go forward.
    Sincerely,
    Nathaniel Cosgrove
    Research Assistant II
    Center for Composite Materials
    University of Delaware
    (302) 831-6928
    [email protected]



MTC-00017564

From: Mark Ferlatte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed final judgment is lacking an 
important remedy: Microsoft should be required to provide public and 
open documentation on their application file formats with enough 
detail to allow other software developers to develop file readers 
and writers for those formats. In my experience as a Linux developer 
and system administrator, the largest remaining issue with 
converting a site from running Microsoft Windows and Office is the 
ability to work with legacy Word and Excel documents. These 
undocumented formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry 
(see ``Findings of Fact'' pp20 and pp39). If these file 
formats were made available, it would be possible for consumers to 
switch to an alternative office suite (such as OpenOffice) which 
could allow them to switch to an alternative operating system if it 
were compelling enough. This choice should be able to be made by the 
consumer, as opposed to any operating system or application 
developer.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Ferlatte
    Berkeley, CA



MTC-00017565

From: Mike Youngstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. This 
settlement will not stop Microsoft from anti-trust violations.
    Mike



MTC-00017566

From: .MAtt Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave MS alone.



MTC-00017567

From: Teresa M Hermiz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    My computer came with Microsoft which has made my life fuller, 
more efficient, and fun. I am delighted that Bill Gates has achieved 
so much success. He deserves it. Nothing should be done to hamper 
him or his company. The government should be protecting his business 
not interfering with it.
    Bill Gates' success in no way threatens anyone. In the long run 
progress is in everyone's best interest. You should suspect the 
motives of anyone who wants to get in his way.
    Everyone, including Bill Gates, has a right to his own property.
    Sincerely,
    Teresa Hermiz
    9118 Mandel Drive
    Centerville, OH 45458



MTC-00017568

From: James Muguira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not like the settlement proposed with the Microsoft corp. 
Allowing the company to just donate some stuff (computers & 
software) is useless and all other elements of the settlement are 
bad business.
    Since I don't like to just complain here is a suggestion:
    1. zap Microsoft with a huge fine (10 billion)
    2. Use the fine to establish a trust (oversight by dept of 
Education and NSF) that Microsoft staffs and operates at their 
expense (for say 10 years))
    3. The trust has the goal of giving away as much of it's yearly 
earnings as possible in 1 year (say $2000, what I pay today) 
scholarships to 2nd, 3rd and 4th year college students. the math... 
assume a 5 % rate of return from the investment market for the next 
10 years ($10,000,000,000 * 0.05) / 2000 = 250,000,000 scholarships 
awarded per year.
    That's a goal of up to 250 million scholarships. If the trust 
could award 200 million and retain a little income to grow the thing 
could perpetuate. seems so simple to me, I guess I live in utopia.
    James A. Muguira
    1719 Beach Road Hampton, Virginia 23664
    757-851-0569



MTC-00017569

From: RDavis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it concerns,
    I do not feel that the proposed settlement will do enough to 
change the practices of the Microsoft Corporation. Remember that 
this company used loopholes in the 1994 consent decree to continue 
their monopolistic practices. The final remedy needs to carefully 
close loopholes and include continous monitoring and severe 
penalties for continued monopolistic practices. As one example, the 
current proposal is very specific to particular versions of 
Microsoft software and operating systems. What will happen to the 
settlement if one month after it is finalized, Microsoft changes the 
names of all their products?
    There are many other things not addressed in the proposed 
settlement, I'm sure many others will do a better job explaining 
them than I will, but just to mention a few that concern me: Closed 
proprietary file formats for things such as word processing

[[Page 26430]]

documents, Licencing agreements that force organizations to pay for 
Microsoft products that they do not use, End user licence agreements 
that prohibit using competing software or open source software, 
Continued ``embrace, extend and extinguish'' practices 
where open standards are weakened by Microsoft, etc.
    Thank you for your time.
    Rob Davis
    Database Programmer / Analyst
    1200 Academy St.
    Kalamazoo Michigan 49006



MTC-00017570

From: Richard Dynes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I've been informed that you are soliciting public feedback on 
the Microsoft settlement.
    I'm very disappointed in the settlement between the DoJ and 
Microsoft. As far as I can see, it does nothing to address the 
proven illegal and continuing anti-competitive practices of 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft has twin operating monopolies: Desktop Operating 
Systems, and Office Automation software. Microsoft used their OS 
monopoly to force Internet Explorer onto consumers, crushing 
Netscape in the process. This is not the first time Microsoft has 
manipulated their ownership of the OS to affect the competitiveness 
of competitors in other spaces: Lotus'' 123 product comes to 
mind.
    Microsoft continues this practice today: Since their office 
automation applications are only available on their operating 
system, they are using these twin monopolies TODAY to take over the 
mobile and palmtop computing market. You can read ads in the trade 
magazine InfoWorld where Microsoft proclaims PocketPC as superior 
because it's the only mobile computing solution where Microsoft's 
office automation applications run.
    They are, today, using their twin monoplies to build a third: 
mobile computing platforms.
    The proposed settlement doesn't address past OR current 
behavior. Allowing computer manufacturer's some freedom in what they 
put on the Microsoft Windows desktop merely codifies the status quo.
    The proposed remedies would not have prevented what Microsoft 
did with Netscape, and will not prevent Microsoft from constructing 
further monopolies from their existing ones.
    Microsoft did real harm to, and has inhibited innovation and 
competition in the industry. Today we have software that has 
security risks, defects, and instabilities, yet we truely have no 
alternatives, because that software is from Microsoft. The rash of 
viruses that have cost untold hours of lost productivity are largely 
Microsoft's doing, yet are accepted because there simply is no 
alternative.
    The proposed remedy is inadequate, and I feel it is a 
capitulation of the DoJ to Microsoft in this matter.
    Richard Dynes
    [email protected]



MTC-00017571

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft is a monopolist and uses technical 
strategies (e.g. avoiding open standards) to keep and extend their 
monopoly.
    I object to the proposed settlement, as I think it allows 
Microsoft to continue these kinds of practices.
    Neal Young
    12 Rockingham St
    Cambridge, MA



MTC-00017572

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm writing to express my disappointment with the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust suit. Microsoft has repeatedly 
shown that it will do anything in its power to maintain their 
monopoly hold on the desktop operating system market and to (ab)use 
this monopoly to further it's penetration into other markets. Many 
of these abuses occurred while they were already under supervision 
for compliance with previous anti-competitive judgements. Indeed, 
Microsoft has made numerous changes in their licensing agreements 
since the start of this lawsuit that to further their monopoly and 
use their monopoly to gain advantage in other markets.
    Although there is sufficient power to monitor Microsoft, the 
proposed settlement does not provide sufficient power to the 
Technical Committee to prevent further abuses by Microsoft. The 
Technical Committee's only recourse is to turn evidence over to the 
legal system. As indicated by the three years that were necessary to 
reach this proposed settlement, such turnaround as provided by the 
legal system will not protect the interests of other companies or 
users.
    The proposed settlement does not ``punish'' Microsoft 
for their abuses. While the donation of computers to schools is a 
nobel cause, Microsoft will hold the value of the computers donated 
as a tax write-off. The value of the donation is set by Microsoft, 
itself, and this donation allows Microsoft to push their monopolic 
hold on the software used by the schools.
    Finally, there is no recompense in the proposed settlement to 
the competitors and users harmed by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices. There are some business practices that would be 
prohibited under the proposed settlement, but these are not broad 
enough to cover the expanse of abuses that Microsoft has perpetrated 
against its competitors and users. Additionally, the opening of APIs 
does not sufficiently reduce the barrier to entry into the markets 
that Microsoft competes in. The listing of APIs to be opened is not 
broad enough, file formats are not required to be open, and the 
method for ISVs to request access to the APIs does not fully ensure 
that these APIs will reach the ISVs in a timely-enough manner for 
them to be able to release compatible products to their customers. 
In conclusion, I request that the current settlement proposal as 
written be rejected .
    Sincerely,
    Logan Hansen
    Network Administrator
    Adams State College
    208 Edgemont Blvd.
    Alamosa, CO 81102
    (719) 587-7790



MTC-00017573

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow Microsoft to buy it's way, once again out! I 
still have three boxed sets of IBM's OS/2 as a reminder and as 
evidence of Microsoft's preditory buisness practices.
    David DeTinne
    916-997-1157



MTC-00017574

From: Jay Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Would like to express my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    The proposed settlement falls far short of punishing Microsoft 
in any way.
    The final settlement needs to go much further in the punitive 
stage.
    Microsoft must be brought back to the business procedures that 
the rest of the software companies in the world are working with, 
and the proposed settlement does nothing more than serve as a slap 
on the wrist.
    Thanks,
    jkt
    Jay Turner, QA Manager
    [email protected]
    Red Hat, Inc.



MTC-00017575

From: Hetrick, Brian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:33pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement not in the public interest
    I am Brian Hetrick, a resident of Manchester, New Hampshire. I 
am employed as a software engineer and have been continuously so 
employed for over twenty years. I believe the proposed settlement in 
United States v. Microsoft is not in the public interest.
    Microsoft's history of predatory anti-competitive behavior is 
long established, and seems to be a fundamental corporate 
philosophy. Microsoft has routinely used its position in one area of 
the computer market to force entry into and dominance in other areas 
of the computer market. This practice of leveraging demand for one 
product into demand for other unrelated products has been a keystone 
of Microsoft's corporate strategy and behavior. I believe the only 
remedy for this predatory anti-competitive strategy is to break 
Microsoft up into a minimum of three separate 
companies-operating system, office products, and consumer 
products-to forbid collusion or ``strategic 
cooperation'' between these

[[Page 26431]]

resultant companies, and to forbid these resultant companies from 
producing products in the areas assigned to the other companies.
    This arrangement would make the successes of Microsoft in one 
area independent from successes in other areas, and would permit 
competition within each of the product lines. Without a back-door 
mechanism to get special functionality into Microsoft Windows, 
Microsoft Office-to pick only one example - would have 
to compete on a level playing field with competitors. It would no 
longer be able to offer functionality unavailable to competing 
office suites. With Microsoft Office expanding its customer base by 
supporting the two highest volume platforms-Windows and Linux 
on Intel-Microsoft Windows would no longer be able to depend 
on demand for Office resulting in demand for Windows. Microsoft 
would be deprived of the major technique by which it has established 
a predatory stranglehold on the entire PC software market.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Hetrick
    CC:Brian Hetrick (E-mail)



MTC-00017576

From: Eric Jergensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find that the proposed settlement has a number of problems. To 
make best use of your time, let me highlight only what I consider to 
be the most significant problem:
    Microsoft has long used secret agreements with resellers and 
OEMs to limit their ability to sell and install competing products. 
Revisions should be made to eliminate this behavior. The further 
ability to leverage existing monopolies into addition market share 
in other areas via discounts or other coersions for OEMs based on 
sales of products like Pocket PC systems should be eliminated.
    Eric Jergensen
    President
    da Vinci Network Services



MTC-00017577

From: Filip Sneppe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I think the settlement proposed by Microsoft is a bad idea: if 
anything, it will only give them a tighter grip on consumers. Hence 
they will come out as stronger monopoly in the long run.
    Please don't be misled by short-term narrow-mindedness; the USA 
has become a blooming economy and, more specifically, a world leader 
in IT and software development through openness. Do not fall prey to 
a state of mind that does not tolerate others and what they stand 
for or believe in.
    Regards,
    Filip Sneppe
    IT Consultant
    Belgium



MTC-00017578

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has consistently and ruthlessly exercised it monopoly 
power over the entire information industry. They should be not only 
prevented from continuing these practices, but also be punished 
(i.e., fined heavily) for what they have done already. Please don't 
let this monopoly continue or it will use its power to spread to 
other industries--as it is now doing.
    Regards,
    Stan Gatchel



MTC-00017579

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is very bad
    You guys are falling flat-let the monopolist pay for their 
sins by giving ``free'' software to schools? How about 
letting me print some $100 bills if I get a fine in court?
    Neal Rauhauser CCNP, CCDPvoice: 402-391-3930
    http://AmericanRelay.comfax : 402-951-6390
    mailto:[email protected] : k0bsd



MTC-00017580

From: Thane Walkup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Thane Walkup



MTC-00017581

From: Cuny, David(a)DSS
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing this e-mail in response to the Proposed Final 
Judgement (United Stated v. Microsoft). I'm especially concerned 
about the use of the terms ``Middleware'', 
``API'', and ``Operating System Product''.
    Historically, Microsoft has shown that it will go to great 
lengths to comply with the letter of the law, while completely 
ignoring the intent. An obvious example was the release of version 
of without IE. Other examples include embedding and spreading the IE 
API calls throughout the Windows DLLs, and renaming 
``Applications'' to ``Operating System 
components''.
    The current definitions of ``middleware'', 
``API'', and ``Operating System Product'' make 
it trivial for Microsoft to sidestep the law by making minor changes 
in their product, or by simply redefining what the product is. For 
example, by changing product version numbers or how they distribute 
middleware, Microsoft can completely sidestep any remedy which 
addresses middleware.
    There are many other issues I have-such as not releasing 
file formats- but I have chosen to focus on these features to 
highlight my concern that the remedy proposed against Microsoft is 
essentially toothless and easily sidestepped.
    Thank you.
    David Cuny



MTC-00017582

From: Carey Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the current Microsoft Settlement goes far 
enough in punishing Microsoft's monopolistic behavior in the past or 
enough to curb their monopolistic behavior it in the future.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Carey Dalton
    Programmer
    209 Golfclub Rd.
    Knoxville, TN 37919
    865-558-9597



MTC-00017583

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have a problem with undocumented file format API's. I work in 
a mixed platform environment of PC's Unix Boxes, X-terms, 
Macintoshes. The need to share documents between the platforms 
relies on translation software and compatible office productivity 
software. Changes to Microsoft Applications Document structure which 
are not documented greatly slow the ability to share work outside of 
a Microsoft world. The pushes the single platform Microsoft box 
solution due to adminstrative decisions, instead of the better task-
matching diverse systems supported by research. [Eric Bolden 
University of Wisconsin-Madison
    [email protected]

[[Page 26432]]



MTC-00017584

From: scott schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my opinion against the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft case. After reading the relevant documents, I have 
concluded that the remedy in no way fits the crime and conviction. 
There is no real punishment for past ill-gotten gains, nor is there 
any real material substance in preventing MS from engaging in prior 
illegal practices in new markets.
    I agree much more with the alternative settlements offered by 
the opposing states.
    I thank you for taking my opinion into consideration.
    Sincerely
    Scott Schmidt
    618 654 8611



MTC-00017585

From: Richard W. Lipp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greeetings:
    As an information technology professional, and as an American 
citizen, I feel it is my duty to provide comment, as provided for in 
the Tunney Act, on the proposed final judgement in the Microsoft 
anti-trust case.
    In essence, my opinion is that the proposed final judgement 
provides so many loopholes that it provides no effective means to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing to engage in anti-competitive 
monopolistic behaviors. As one reads text of the proposed final 
judgement, and analysis of the proposed final judgement, one cannot 
help but wonder if Microsoft were allowed to write the document in 
whole! Specious definitions and narrow catagorizations result in a 
document that fails to properly address Microsoft's past behavior. 
The result is a document that provides very few obstacles to 
continued monopolistic behavior, and even those are easily 
circumvented by the exact same sort of tactics used by Microsoft to 
get around past efforts to control its behavior.
    Microsoft has previously used the tactic of renaming a version 
or product to remove it from the scope of legal agreements. 
Microsoft has previously used the tactic of claiming, and claiming 
falsely as has been shown, that a governed product is an essential 
part of another ungoverned product to remove it from the scope of 
legal agreements. Microsoft has repeatedly shown that any rules 
dependent on their agreeing to ``play nice'' are 
effectively worthless. Still, the proposed final judgement retains 
several loopholes that will allow Microsoft to use the exact same 
tactics again. Microsoft claims a ``freedom to innovate'', 
but the proposed final judgement does not even require them to 
innovate new methods of circumvention. We might as well rename the 
document the ``New England Migratory Waterfowl Breeding 
Act''. In the final analysis, the proposed final judgement is 
about as effectual in either arena.
    Respectfully,
    Richard W. Lipp
    Information Systems ManagerVoice:913/236-8110 x1223
    List & Clark Construction CoFax:913/236-4052
    Holliday Sand & Gravel CoeFax: 413/480-3723
    Central Plains Contracting Co E-mail:RWLipp@List-
Clark.com



MTC-00017586

From: Michael Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I 
feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software, and would like 
to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does 
not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage 
hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing 
products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers.
    Michael Morris
    Glendale, AZ
    [email protected]



MTC-00017587

From: Vicki Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: comments on Microsoft Settlement
    MicroSoft has been found guilty of being a high-handed monopoly. 
The only way to stop them is to stop them in truth. Their punishment 
must be severe- severe enough for MicroSoft to get the 
message, severe enough for any other company to get the message, 
severe enough for the people who use their products to get the 
message.
    We must not say ``Oh, you did wrong, but gee, so many 
people use your products''. We must only say ``You did 
wrong. It's not acceptable. Your practices will not be 
tolerated.'' MicroSoft needs more than a wink, a nod, and a 
slap on the proverbial wrist.
    MictoSoft needs to know that their type of business practices 
are NOT acceptable.
    -Vicki
    Vicki Brown
    P.O. Box 1269
    San Bruno, CA
    94066 USA
    Journeyman Sourceror:
    Scripts & Philtres
    Peri, Units, MacOS



MTC-00017588

From: Jeremy Padfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The existing settlement proposed in the Microsoft antitrust 
trial is insufficient to prevent Microsoft's past conduct from 
continuing in the future. Such conduct harms the market, stifles new 
and innovative technologies, and reduces the operating systems and 
applications choices available to end-users.
    Any acceptable settlement in this case must impose tighter 
restrictions and penalize Microsoft heavily for any continued anti-
competitive violations. Any acceptable settlement must also include 
an effective enforcement mechanism that Microsoft cannot dodge or 
ignore. Microsoft has been known to flagrantly ignore external 
authorities in past cases and this kind of corporate arrogance must 
be curtailed.
    For the sake of customers, partners and competitors alike, 
please reject this proposed settlement and seek more stringent 
remedies against this monopolist.



MTC-00017589

From: Weigert, Daniel
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the proposed Microsoft judgement is fatally flawed. 
If they wish to remain a monopoly, then they must accept the 
consequences of being a regulated monopoly.. If they want to be on 
their own, then they must be held accountable for their abysmal 
behaviour in the computing industry. The proposed settlement is 
nothing more than a reward for their bad behaviour. If nothing else, 
they should be broken into four or five different companies to make 
sure that they don't concentrate this much influence again.
    Daniel Weigert
    Cirqit
    100 South Jefferson Rd, 3rd Floor
    Whippany, NJ 07981
    Phone: (973) 257-8781
    Fax: (973) 257-8764
    [email protected]



MTC-00017590

From: William Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The United States Department of Justice
    Re: Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. Microsoft
    I have read numerous newspaper articles and web pages regarding 
the PFJ, most notably the DOJ's web site and Dan Kegel's web site. I 
am an electrical engineer writing software for a large wireless 
company with eight years experience in the field. I am a consumer of 
software for personal computers, some from Microsoft, some from 
other vendors, and some free and open source.
    First, I want to endorse Mr. Kegel's open letter to the DOJ. 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    I agree with Mr. Kegel in that the PFJ is too narrow and 
technical to limit Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Second, 
let me describe how Microsoft harms me, the consumer and citizen, 
and what the results of a Microsoft penalty should be.
    Microsoft prevents me from buying quality software. While 
Microsoft has some desirable products, such as its desktop office 
suite, there are many that are both inferior and expensive, such as 
its personal internet information server. By forcing OEM into 
exclusive contracts, Microsoft prevents them from competing with one 
another to deliver the best software package to me. I would like to 
buy a computer with the Microsoft Office suite and the apache web 
server (which is

[[Page 26433]]

free, secure, efficient and scalable) preinstalled and configured, 
and I am sure that major manufacturers like Dell and Compaq would 
offer this combination if they could, as it's a combination 
frequently deployed by individuals and corporations. Microsoft 
prevents developers from producing quality software. In a 
competitive market place, software developers should win by giving 
consumers the most value. The fact that Microsoft applications only 
run on run on Microsoft Windows is a sign that the software market 
is less than competitive, since in a competitive market their 
application market would expand if applications were 
``ported'' to other platforms. This is harmful to me, the 
consumer, in that it prevents me from choosing the best platform on 
which to run a selected Microsoft application. Likewise, it prevents 
developers from creating applications that run on the Microsoft 
platform.
    Finally, Microsoft weakens the national information 
infrastructure. While
    I credit Microsoft for making computers affordable and 
accessible to consumers, and hence creating a good deal of the 
information infrastructure, their anti-competitive practices have 
shielded them from the market forces that would naturally result in 
better software for everyone. The ``nimda'' computer worm 
is an excellent example. It was not a subtle bug in Microsoft's web 
server, it was more like an invitation to vandals, and it is costing 
individuals and their internet providers many millions of dollars. I 
am certain that this overlooked security hole would have been found 
and secured in a competitive software market. As it is, we all 
suffer as a result of Microsoft's arrogance.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    William Warner
    Seattle, Washington
    [email protected]



MTC-00017591

From: Peter Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    This is a ``Tunney Act'' comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. If Microsoft, found guilty of a serious crime, 
despite their perjured testimony during the trial, is punished by a 
settlement so light, how can we with a straight face ever give 
anyone any harsh punishment? In an age where ``three strikes 
and you're out'', and no parole, and mandatory jail time, how 
can this settlement be justified? They were found guilty by a court. 
They were found guilty by an appeals court. Their appeal to the 
Supreme Court was denied.
    Why back down now? Why, after a reasonable punishment was 
determined (that Microsoft be split up) is the new, 
``fixed'' version so light?
    My specified beef are
    (1) Microsoft may decline to expose any particular API by 
declaring that it's used for ``security''. However, this 
includes most of the profitable third party industries. How can 
anyone inter operate with, for example, Microsoft's Exchange email 
server without the necessary technical details?
    (2) The definition of ``Windows'' is absurdly narrow. 
Microsoft currently sells at least five different operating systems 
(X Box, WebTV, Windows CE, the ``Windows 95'' version of 
windows and the ``Windows NT'' version). Most of these are 
not covered. Microsoft can escape from most penalties by simply 
making a new operating system. Given that they have created so many 
operating systems in the last ten years, it's not hard to see them 
making more.
    (3) Microsoft is not prevented from refusing to sell their OS to 
the different PC manufacturers. It was well documented at the trial 
that they have used their OS power to push other products; this is 
the very nature of anti-competitive behavior that should be stopped.
    Thank you for listening,
    Peter Smith



MTC-00017592

From: Rachael Esterkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.



MTC-00017593

From: Anthony Valentine
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Hesse,
    I would like to inform you of my objections to the Proposed 
Settlement in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case.
    As a Linux user, I frequently attempt to convince people to try 
Linux. Very few people actually do. Most people I talk to about it 
say that they need Microsoft Office, and since it doesn't run on 
Linux, they won't try it.
    I have come to the conclusion that the average person doesn't 
seem to care about the Operating System that runs on their computer, 
they care about the applications. The people I talk to say that they 
like what Linux can offer them in terms of cost, security and 
stability. However, they are willing to endure the crashes and 
viruses so rampant in Windows, simply because everybody else runs 
Office, so they have to also in order to exchange documents.
    The Proposed Settlement does not require Microsoft to disclose 
it's Office document formats. I think that it should. This one small 
addition would allow people to use competing software and still be 
able to exchange MS Office documents. If people were able to this, 
most of the objections to trying Linux (or any other OS) would go 
away.
    Openness is the key here. One of the reasons that Open Source 
Software is successful, is that everything is based on open 
standards. This openness allows anybody to write new or extend old 
software. The effect of this is a large number of different software 
packages that all do the same thing a lightly different way, giving 
the users a large pool of options to choose from. Which is the whole 
point: let the users choose what they want to run, instead of 
forcing them all to use one package.
    I would also like to make a brief comment on the state of the 
economy and it's possible impact on the Settlement. I am not an 
economist, however some articles that I have read alluded that the 
Proposed Settlement is purposely lenient because the DOJ doesn't 
want to cripple a major US corporation in times of economic 
downturn. I do not know if this is true or not, however I can say 
that I would disagree with it if it were. Large monopolistic 
companies are bad for the economy (more so during an economic 
downturn), which is the entire purpose behind the Anti-Trust laws in 
the first place.
    Thank you.
    Anthony Valentine
    Spenard Builders Supply
    System Administrator
    [email protected]



MTC-00017594

From: Jason Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement to be a bad idea.
    Jason Hill
    [email protected]
    215.925.1800 x102 http://weblinc.com



MTC-00017595

From: Brad Baggett
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    Brad Baggett
    Network Engineer
    CST, Inc.
    256-890-3011



MTC-00017596

From: Brian C. Cunningham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not like the settlement that someone in the government has 
made after lining their pockets with Microsoft dollars. Break them 
up.
    Brian C. Cunningham
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA



MTC-00017597

From: newquist@ speakeasy.org@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:

[[Page 26434]]

    I've been watching the proceedings of the Microsoft anti-trust 
case for years now, and respectfully disagree with the proposed 
settlement. There are too many points to address fully, so I'll just 
point out the one that bothers me the most.
    The proposed settlement doesn't do much to foster competition in 
the software market. We should require Microsoft to standardize and 
publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the file formats of its 
Office applications, with the express goal of allowing competitors 
to build Windows software applications, and operating systems, that 
compete with Microsoft on a level field. This would greatly reduce 
the lock-in that Microsoft has on the consumer and businesses.
    As an example, Intel and AMD have been successfully competing, 
with great benefits to the consumer, based on the open X86 CPU 
instruction set. I firmly believe that creating open standards out 
of the core Windows infrastructure would create similar benefits to 
consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Newquist
    Computer Engineer
    Hillsboro, Oregon, USA.



MTC-00017598

From: Tom (q)spot(q) Callaway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not punish Microsoft, it rewards 
them for being a monopoly.
    This is a mockery of justice, and is a terrible idea. spot
    --
    Tom ``spot'' Callaway 
 Red Hat Sales Engineer
    Sair Linux and GNU Certified Administrator (LCA)
    Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE) GPG: D786 8B22 D9DB 1F8B 4AB7 
448E 3C5E 99AD 9305 4260
    The words and opinions reflected in this message do not 
necessarily reflect those of my employer, Red Hat, and belong solely 
to me.
    ``Immature poets borrow, mature poets steal.'' 
-T. S. Eliot



MTC-00017599

From: Michael Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:38pm
Subject: I do not agree with the proposed settlement
    Under Definition U: The definition of Windows Operating System 
Product is too narrow.
    It should include any OS that allows programs written to the 
Win32 API to run. The way it stands now, Microsoft could evade the 
provision by turning its efforts toward developing a different 
operating system or focusing on an operating system not covered that 
still supported the Win32 APIs.
    - michael
    Michael Bishop
    Oakland, CA



MTC-00017600

From: Ronny Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'll try to keep from ranting, but when it comes to this issue, 
that's easier said than done.
    Fact: THE GOVERNMENT (for the people) told Microsoft in no 
uncertain terms in 1995 how they had to act to avoid BREAKING THE 
LAW.
    Fact: They did it anyway. A judge has ruled.
    Fact: Microsoft, in breaking the law, has made more money from 
its ILLEGAL activity than the mind can comprehend.
    Fact: The settlement does NOT punish the criminal on a level 
equal to the profits made, and the damage done to hard working 
computer professionals the world over. Fact: Criminals are doing 
time for offenses where one person was damaged hundreds or thousands 
of dollars. You have criminals at Microsoft, who ran up damages into 
the millions or billions, and affected the lively-hood of possibly 
hundreds of thousands of people. Why don't they do time as part of 
the ``settlement''?? Fact: The ``proposed 
settlement'' is basically saying, ``don't break the law 
again''. Please. Give me a break, and THROW THE BOOK AT 
MICROSOFT! They should be treated with all the respect due a common 
CRIMINAL!
    Sincerely,
    Ronny Smith
    PS All public comment should be scrutinized very carefully to 
make sure it is PUBLIC comment.
    Microsoft has a mighty PR team of low lives, and have been known 
to have financial ties to people submitting ``public'' 
comment. Just ask the LA TIMES.



MTC-00017601

From: Rob Bos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a citizen of Canada who believes he will be harmed by any 
settlement decision of the Court that will allow Microsoft to 
continue abusing and extending the monopoly power that they have 
illegally acquired and maintained.
    Please let it be known that the decision of the Court will 
affect many people outside the Court's jurisdiction.



MTC-00017602

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a professional research scientist in the IT field having 
given careful consideration and study to the terms of the proposed 
final judgment I must respectfully disagree with the conclusions of 
Department of Justice and strongly urge you not to proceed with the 
settlement in this form. Contrary to being an effective remedy, I 
believe that as currently written the proposed final judgment would 
strengthen Microsoft's monopoly and further damage competition.
    The current proposed remedy relies on the concept of 
``middleware'' to promote competition. By defining 
middleware in terms of API's and other documentation published by 
Microsoft, the PFJ presupposes and encourages the continuance of 
Microsoft's dual monopoly in operating systems and applications. As 
the original Finding of Fact rightly pointed out, Microsoft's 
monopoly stems from the market need for a critical threshold of 
available applications before an operating system can be accepted. 
Likewise developers create applications only for accepted operating 
systems.
    The current proposal frees Microsoft to continue existing 
dependencies and create new dependences between applications and 
Microsoft's proprietary operating systems. This leaves Microsoft's 
monopoly power intact and unfettered. In fact, the PFJ sanctions 
these dependencies. For example, sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product''. Thus information which could be 
used to create competition for operating systems is expressly denied 
from being used for that purpose.
    By defining the basis of competition at the middleware layer, 
the PFJ guarantees there will be no competition. Microsoft has 
already shown that it is willing to sacrifice any revenue 
opportunities at this layer in order to protect the the revenues 
associated with both sides of the middleware where it holds 
monopolies on the operating system and application. Since no 
competitor has access to these revenue sources, and there is no 
chance of severing the dependence between applications and operating 
systems, there is no economic incentive for competition to enter. 
Hence there will be no competition.
    To be an effective solution that benefits the public interest, 
any settlement must break the proprietary dependence between 
applications and operating systems. For example, applications like 
Microsoft Word must be able to run on non-Microsoft operating 
systems. Microsoft currently prevents these applications from being 
used on non-Windows platforms through a variety of technical and 
legal means. I believe it is possible and within scope of law for 
the DOJ to create remedies that accomplished this goal. However the 
current proposed final judgment will not achieve this and in all 
probability will lead to continued monopolistic practices and harm 
to consumers and the market.
    Please note that while I am an employee of Ricoh Innovations, 
Inc. the opinions expressed here are solely my own and not those of 
Ricoh Innovations, or its parent company.
    Sincerely,
    -Gregory J Wolff
    Gregory J. Wolff [email protected]
    Ricoh Innovations, Inc http://rii.ricoh.com/wolff/

[[Page 26435]]

    2882 SandHill Rd. Suite 115 phone: +1.650.496.5718
    Menlo Park, CA 94025-7022 fax: +1.650.854.8740



MTC-00017603

From: Clark McGrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the propose 
Department of Justice Settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case. 
The drafted settlement does little to address the core 
monopolization violations that were affirmed by the unanimous Court 
of Appeals in June 2001.
    The DC Circuit Court found that a remedy should ``unfetter 
[the] market from anti-competitive conduct'' and 
``terminate the illegal monopoly''.
    This coulde be facilitated by Section III.D which requires that 
``the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft 
Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System 
Product''. However, the limitations in III.J seem to render the 
provision meaningless.
    The current settlement will allow Microsoft to maintain tight 
control over the community which develops products that interoperate 
with Microsoft Windows System APIs. Further, it allows Microsoft to 
decide who will compete against it's middleware products by 
requiring a ``reasonable business'' need for the API 
documentation which will allow Microsoft to prevent competition from 
OpenSource software (e.g. software developed in a manner akin to the 
Linux operating system). I suggest that Microsoft should be required 
to publicly document all Microsoft Windows APIs without requiring 
non-disclosure agreements, or undue publication fees.
    Finally, the security concerns mentioned in III.J.1 provide no 
justification for weakening the API documentation requirements. The 
field of computer security has demonstrated through many years of 
experience that security cannot depend on obfuscation and is best 
maintained using well documented security measures. This section 
provides Microsoft Middleware with another unfair advantage to 
compete against third party products. I ask that III.J.1.a be struck 
completely.
    Sincerely,
    Clark McGrew
    [email protected]



MTC-00017604

From: Sean Riley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed deal does not go far enough in punishing 
Microsoft and should therefore be rejected.
    Sean Riley
    [email protected]



MTC-00017605

From: John R.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good afternoon,
    I am writing in response to the Proposed Final Judgement to the 
currently open anti-trust case against Microsoft. I have read large 
portions of the proposal and related information and have found 
numerous problems with it.
    I find that it is at best, rediculous, and at worst insulting to 
the American public. I'll center my complaint on a single issue in 
the spirit of brevity.
    The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says:
    ``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute ... 
the Redistributable Components... provided that (a) you distribute 
the Redistributable Components only in conjunction with and as a 
part of your Application solely for use with a Microsoft Operating 
System Product...''
    This makes it illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++ 
on Windows-compatible competing operating systems. I find it to be 
more than a bit wrong to force developers to exclude target 
platforms based on whether Microsoft chooses to admit that it is a 
compatible platform.
    Please deny this proposal and move forward with a course of 
action that would actually eliminate ( rather than complicate ) the 
anti-competitive practices of Microsoft.
    John D. Rothe
    [email protected]
    Bloomsburg, PA.



MTC-00017606

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For a number of reasons, this settlement is a bad idea. As a 
U.S. Citizen, I do not support it.



MTC-00017607

From: Bill Pela
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to offer a few comments on the state of the 
microsoft settlement.
    1. I had/have a very hard time accepting the reversal of Judge 
Jackson. As far as his comments about mocrosoft executives, I 
agreed. The execs. that ``testified'' sounded like idiots 
that MUST have found their riches under a rock they tripped over, 
I.E. `I don't understand the question'.
    2. microsoft itself MIGHT, in fact, be sealing it's own fate 
with concepts like XP but, with their past history of total want of 
control of all things computer, and now internet, I fear for average 
users.
    3. Bill Gates doesn't come across as a person that is either 
intelligent or compassionate. I believe ``power mad'' is 
the closest description I can imagine, it can't be about money 
anymore, can it?
    Steve Ballmar sounds like a very unreasonable person, profit as 
the motive or not.
    Yes, I am a LinuX user, in part because of the actions of 
microsoft, please don't let these people ``off'' to 
continue to treat average users the way they have in the past and 
indicate they will treat them in the future. A lot of consumer 
income hangs in the balance.
    Thanks for your time, Bill Pela
    5113 Turtle Cove Rd.
    Garland, Tx 75044



MTC-00017608

From: Robert Nevitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement is bad. I'm voted for Bush in the 
election, but because he apointed the DOJ head who made this 
settlement I won't vote for him again.
    Robert Nevitt
    [email protected]
    (415) 430-1269 x9783-voicemail/fax



MTC-00017609

From: Elliott, Geoffrey R
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern...
    I would like to add my voice to the opposition of the settlement 
with Microsoft. I feel that it does very little to ensure that the 
anti-competitive (and illegal) behavior of which Microsoft has been 
convicted will not continue. I also feel that it does not properly 
punish Microsoft for its behavior, and that in regards to both 
concerns the action proposed by the nine states better serves the 
interests of our country.
    I am a web developer; I have been aversely affected by 
Microsoft's illegal actions. With their ill-gotten dominance in the 
browser market I fear that they will feel no need to improve their 
products because they have no competition. Without competition, 
markets stagnate, and we all suffer.
    I do not want to see Microsoft's anti-competitive and illegal 
behavior continue unchecked, and believe that the current settlement 
will allow just that.
    Geoffrey Elliott
    [email protected]
    509.372.4325



MTC-00017610

From: J. Jentink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:40pm
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Sirs--
    I have been in the US computer industry since the late sixties 
and there exists no threat to the long term American economy that 
approaches where Microsoft is headed. Allowing them to continue 
their shady practices and underhanded tactics based on monopoly and 
monetary power must stop. We must come down on them hard and 
immediately. The proposed settlement is less than a hand slap. We 
need some real teeth in terms of immediate penalties to aid those 
harmed, a prohibition of Microsoft expanding their tentacles into 
new areas and a totally independent mechanism for makes certain 
their practices are brought back into the norm of honest and fair 
business practices.
    1) The quality and reliability of Microsoft products are at a 
level that would be unacceptable in any field without monopoly 
control.
    2) Any company that choices to partner with Microsoft has 
brought about their own

[[Page 26436]]

death. Some are bought but for most, their intellectual property is 
usurped by Microsoft.
    3) Almost no innovation is happening within the areas of 
Microsoft control. Companies know that every innovation they 
introduce will eventually be taken by the evil monopoly. For 
example, it is almost impossible to get venture capital for software 
development today. The people with the money know that Microsoft 
will use its power to take it for their own and then they will have 
to pay the costs of fighting a legal battle with the big money 
machine. They know historically that there is not winning, 
eventually Microsoft will prevail.
    4) The only things that Microsoft seems to be afraid of today 
are truly open standards that they can not ``embrace and 
extend'' and the Linux ``free and open'' operating 
system. One should note that Linux is a essentially a product of 
Europe and often associated with their institutions of higher 
learning. There is little input from US institutions since our 
universities take our public money but instead of giving new 
technologies and software developed using this money back to the 
public, they sell or license them for additional income.
    If these trends continue, the world will eventually need a 
solution to the high cost and low quality of Microsoft products. By 
that time, only countries like India and China or the EU will have 
the ability to produce systems and products independent of 
Microsoft's control. Such a turn of events will dramatically reduce 
our now dominant position in computing, networking and information 
engineering to that of a third rate contributor, with a heavy toll 
on our economy and quality of life.
    Thank you for your attention,
    J. Jentink



MTC-00017611

From: Darryl Davidson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 1:37pm
Subject: regarding Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    My name is Darryl Davidson. I am a computer professional, with 
20 years of involvement in the industry, and I have spent a 
considerable amount of time monitoring this case. I'm writing to 
voice my grave disappointment at the settlement being offered 
Microsoft in their ongoing antitrust trial.
    As a consumer, I've watched Microsoft repeatedly add features to 
their various operating systems that made for compelling upgrade 
sales, then abandon these features a version or two later. The price 
climbs, the quality stays mediocre, and the market value earned by 
Microsoft's monopoly has literally exploded.
    If Microsoft is to be treated as a legal monopoly like many 
public utilities, a profit margin that is literally orders of 
magnitude above the cost of goods produced (hundreds of dollars 
retail for OS copies that cost a few dollars) needs to be a 
targeted, regulated outcome of their monopoly status.
    If, as this settlement allows, there will be no public 
protections against the gouging that Microsoft is busily doing, and 
if the remedies presented are going to be this toothless, antitrust 
has become a travesty.
    The remedies need to provide direct and immediate punitive 
damages at a level that acts as a corporate deterrent to the abusive 
practices Microsoft has been found guilty of. None of the remedies 
offered do this. This decree should be setting a new record for 
damages. Instead, it is less than a slap of the hand.
    The remedies need to act to regain the balance and competition 
Microsoft has squelched though anticompetitive measures. Ignoring 
for a moment the patheticness of creating a 3 person board to 
monitor this settlement, allowing Microsoft ANY position in the 
regulatory board is ludicrous. One man can stymie a 3 person 
committee or board. Add in the lack of true, unassailable 
enforcement strengths given to this board, and you've nearly 
guaranteed we'll just be starting antitrust proceedings again in a 
few years.
    In short, this settlement should be completely thrown out. It 
does nothing to remedy damages to consumers, nothing to deter 
anticompetitive acts in the future, and nothing toward enriching 
competition. It is a paper tiger, and will never accomplish a damn 
thing for those of us damaged by Microsoft's illegal acts.
    -Darryl Davidson
    PS: My only vested interests in any of these procedings are 10 
shares of Microsoft stock. I am not now, nor have I ever been, an 
employee of any of the primary companies involved in these 
procedings. My interest is strictly as a consumer and as an industry 
member who empathizes with those caught in the crosshairs of large, 
anticompetitive corporations.
    CC:`darryl(a)cableone.net'



MTC-00017612

From: David Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software developer for over 10 years, and an entrepeneur in 
the software and media (video game) industries, I feel I must offer 
my comments on the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice.
    In summary, the Proposed Final Judgment allows many exclusionary 
practices to continue, and does not take any direct measures to 
reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to 
the market.
    It is my firm belief, and one shared with many of my colleagues, 
that Microsoft has, by virtue of its status as a monopoly, been a 
massively pernicious influence on the computer industry, and by 
direct result, on our nation's economy. The insulation from real 
challenge which Microsoft has enjoyed over the past 15 years has 
been felt uniformly in its products, services, and conduct toward 
its customers, let alone towards its competitors. Had Microsoft been 
obliged to compete on the basis of technical merit alone, our 
everyday computing experience would be staggeringly 
different-with a net effect of what I believe to be hundreds 
of billions of dollars in cumulative productivity gains.
    When Bell Telephone was still the nascent nervous system of our 
country, regulators saw the necessity of strong remedies, despite 
some now familiar scare tactics. Had they not, phone calls would 
cost dollars instead of cents, and the world would be a very 
different place; dependent on the imaginations of a single 
organization which is insulated from threats and fears change.
    Developing a remedy for the computer industry will be even more 
difficult than for the telecommunications industry, and it will be 
even more essential.
    In short:
    * While the government cannot maintain an operating system 
standard, or pick a winner from the marketplace, it can have a 
massively beneficial effect by encouraging competition through a 
remedy which directs Microsoft to providing some aid for ISVs 
engaged in making Windows-compatible operating systems.
    By inducing Microsoft to make full disclosure about its 
products, especially its operating systems past and present, and to 
support competitors who wish to make compatible products, 
competition can be reintroduced to the marketplace. This will force 
developers to compete on the basis of merit, instead of through 
obscurity, lack of standardization, incompatibility, and patent 
lawsuits-the current way things are done.
    The Findings of Fact (P52) considered the possibility that 
competing operating systems could implement the Windows APIs and 
thereby directly run software written for Windows as a way of 
circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is in fact the 
route being taken by the Linux operating system, which includes 
middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
    To the contrary, the PFJ as it currently stands, in sections 
III.D. and III.E., restricts information released by those sections 
to be used ``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from 
using the information for the purpose of writing operating systems 
that interoperate with Windows programs, and it would virtually 
ensure Microsoft never need fear meaningful competition on the basis 
of technical merit.
    * The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a 
Technical Committee with investigative powers, but appears to leave 
all actual enforcement to the legal system.
    * The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical 
information to ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several 
ways: The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, API documentation is released too late to help ISVs, 
many important APIs would remain undocumented, unreasonable 
restrictions are placed on the use of the released documentation, 
file formats remain undocumented, and patents covering the Windows 
APIs remain undisclosed.
    * The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, 
but curiously allows the following exclusionary practices: Section 
III.A.2 allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.

[[Page 26437]]

    Section III.B requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    Section III.B also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas.
    * Microsoft still engages in EULA practices which discriminate 
against competitors, specifically any windows-compatible alternative 
operating system. Specifically, I provide two examples: the 
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA discriminates against 
ISVs who ship Open Source applications, and the Microsoft Platform 
SDK EULA prohibits use of necessary components on non-Microsoft 
products. There are numerous others, as this is a systematic 
anticompetitive strategy on the part of Microsoft. The PFJ does 
nothing to discourage these onerous practices.
    * Microsoft's enterprise license agreements often resemble the 
per-processor licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 consent 
decree in the earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case, in that a fee 
is charged for each desktop or portable computer which could run a 
Microsoft operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft 
software is actually installed on the affected computer. These 
agreements are anticompetitive because they remove any financial 
incentive for individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft 
software.
    * The PFJ's definition of API might omit important APIs such as 
the Microsoft Installer APIs which are used by installer programs to 
install software on Windows.
    * The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware'' (P28) is 
unnecessarily restrictive and contains significant loopholes, such 
as exclusion based simply on version numbers or distribution 
methods.
    * ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' does not include 
.NET, Outlook, or Office. I should note that these and other objects 
have been excellently detailed further at the following URL: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html I hope that these matters will be 
seriously considered.
    Microsoft's belligerent behavior and our-way-or-the-highway 
quality standards have been a terrible burden on our workplace, our 
industry, and our lives. We hope the court has the imagination to 
understand what better alternatives exist, and to understand the 
dramatic good effect that strong, intelligent, proper solutions can 
have. With the high costs and dramatic failures the press has 
recently observed, I trust the disaster of the status quo is 
obvious.
    Best Regards,
    -David Wood



MTC-00017613

From: Andrew Sayman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current judgement seems to do little to affect the market 
that Microsoft has illegally dominated. I disagree with this 
judgement and think significant revision is in order



MTC-00017614

From: Kahli R. Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been watching the progress of the antitrust case against 
Microsoft for many years now. While I am not an expert in law, I do 
believe I have a valid and useful perspective as both a software 
engineer and American citizen. It is clear to me, and this has been 
proven in a court of law, that Microsoft has been engaged in 
anticompetitive practices for a long time. It has used its market 
position, obtained by bullying smaller companies, to bully more 
companies and increase its market share further. It has abused its 
power, and should be punished for its tactics and the harm it has 
done. Aside from reparations, there should be strong rules put in 
place to stimulate competition and open opportunities for others to 
compete in this market.
    I believe, and there are many who would agree with me, that the 
current proposed settlement does not do enough to right Microsoft's 
wrongs. I will not take the time now to go over all the areas that 
could be improved, but simply touch on a few major issues.
    1. The language for non-discrimination against OEMs that sell 
computers with an OS other than Windows does not seem strong enough, 
specifically in terms of smaller OEMs.
    2. Microsoft must be forced to open proprietery APIs and 
document formats for Windows and Microsoft Office to stimulate 
competition in this area.
    3. Microsoft routinely discriminates against open source 
software in it's EULAs, disallowing open source software that 
operates with the Windows operating system to be shipped with 
certain Windows add ons that it may depend on. This creates a 
barrier to the market for open source software, based solely on the 
license for the software.
    4. Microsoft has a proposal for donating some of its software to 
schools as reparation for past ills, but this serves as a way to 
increase its market share in education, at minimal cost to 
Microsoft. Perhaps Microsoft should pay the money it says its 
software is worth, and allow the schools the choice of which 
hardware and software platform makes the most sense.
    It seems likely that unless more is done to prevent illegal 
practices, Microsoft will continue to have a stranglehold on the 
software industry, and derivatives, such as internet services. I 
strongly urge you to take this letter as evidence that the American 
people do not agree with this proposed settlement, as for every one 
that communicates with you, there are probably a few hundred more 
who feel the same.
    Thank you,
    Kahli Burke
    1675 Long Island Dr.
    Eugene, OR 97401



MTC-00017615

From: Steve Russo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe that the settlement is fair. We have lost many 
great companies because of the predatory nature of Microsoft. I have 
been forced to buy their operating systems with new pcs, even though 
I don't use their operating systems, I use linux.
    I am currently in the process of signing up for the class action 
suit in Minnesota. Please do not let them get off of the line this 
easily. We cannot bring our lost companies back, but we CAN do 
something about the companies that are left.
    Also, in my opinion, their sales will not affect our economy as 
much as the lost companies would have. They are being boycotted in 
many countries because of their practices. We are losing our market 
share in these remote locations because of them.
    Thanks,
    Steve Russo
    http://www.fixyoursink.net
    http://users.fixyoursink.net/stephen.russo



MTC-00017616

From: Richard Huffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but how can it be a good thing to 
take small measures to re-introduce competition in application 
software while legitimizing the near monopolistic control of the 
operating system market that they used to get in trouble in the 
first place? If someone commits a robbery, do we return the weapons 
to him before he has even served his sentence, or at all??
    Microsoft leveraged a monopoly in one market to create a 
monopoly in another. Shouldn't an effective remedy curtail *both* 
monopolies?
    Thank you for your patience
    Richard Huffman



MTC-00017617

From: John B. Pormann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional, I would like to add my comments to 
those being collected towards the final settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation. Please note that these opinions are my own and should 
not be construed to reflect on my employer, Duke University.
    Ralph Nader and James Love put forth a number of good comments 
in their open letter, available at: http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html Perhaps most critical of these points 
is the fact that Microsoft has repeatedly used proprietary file 
formats to thwart interoperability efforts with other platforms. In 
some cases, this

[[Page 26438]]

obfuscation of file formats has been extreme enough that THEIR OWN 
PRODUCTS have not interoperated across different versions. One 
particular example occurred when their MS Word 5 product could not 
read files created under MS Word 6. This apparently happened again 
between Word 6 and the Office 97 release.
    By repeatedly changing file formats and NOT publishing the new 
formats in a timely manner (if ever), Microsoft imposes a 
significant hurdle upon other companies that wish to compete in the 
marketplace. Such competition is simply not present in the market 
today, with the end result that users have THEIR OWN DATA tied up in 
Microsoft's proprietary file format. By tying a user's data into a 
proprietary format, Microsoft inhibits a user's ability to move, or 
even test, their business operations on other vendor products. If a 
budget spreadsheet is in the MS Excel format, you must use MS Excel 
to read or analyze it, even though other, perhaps better, analysis 
methods could be developed outside of MS Excel. Note that this is 
THE USER'S DATA, not Microsoft's. This is data that could be 
critical to the operation of their business, and it is tied up in 
Microsoft proprietary file formats. Thus, the user must spend 
additional resources, both time and money, to regain access to THEIR 
OWN DATA if they switch to a competing vendor.
    I suggest that additional thought be given to imposing some form 
of standards to Microsoft's file formats, either:
    1. forcing Microsoft to only use file formats approved by an 
INDEPENDENT standards body; or
    2. forcing Microsoft to publish their file formats, including a 
reference implementation, to encode and decode such formats, 
available in a platform-independent source code format
    In either case, Microsoft's adoption or creation of a new file 
format should be published WELL BEFORE the sale of any new computer 
program so that competing vendors have the opportunity to 
interoperate with the standard at the time the Microsoft product 
hits the market.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share these thought with you.
    John
    John B. Pormann, PhD Phone: 919-660-5171
    Dept. of Electrical Engineering Fax: 919-660-5293
    Duke University Email: [email protected]
    Box 90291, Durham, NC, 27708-0291



MTC-00017618

From: Josh Simmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For a fair and just conclusion to the Microsoft Settlement, I 
feel Microsoft should have to provide restitution in the form of 
competitors products. They should provide to federal, state and 
county institutions and schools products such as hardware from Apple 
Computer, Sun Microsystems, SGI and Novel, as well as software from 
Apple Computer, Oracle, Netscape and Britannica.
    Any donations, contributions and or reduced rate sales of 
Microsoft hardware and or software would only further their monopoly 
in the computer hardware and software markets.
    These are my opinions, comments and suggestions on the matter of 
the Microsoft monopoly.
    Josh Simmons
    Reno, NV



MTC-00017619

From: David Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:38pm
Subject: No! to Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I would like to register my disagreement with the proposed 
antitrust settlement with Microsoft. More should be done to reduce 
the power of Microsoft against its rivals-power that Microsoft 
has used repeatedly to cripple or destroy competitive products. 
Microsoft must also be obliged to pay a substantial 
penalty-one more commensurate with the damage done to the 
competitors and the costs imposed on consumers.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    David Johnson
    David R. Johnson, Ph.D.
    Research Scientist, Department of Pathology
    454 BCMM, 295 Congress Avenue
    Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
    Tel.: 203/737-2298, Fax: 203/737-2293



MTC-00017620

From: William C. T. Van Hecke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:40pm
Subject: Harsher punishment necessary.
    The company has abused its monopoly power, and deliberately 
failed to comply with the already lenient punishment assigned to 
them. Such an infraction does not deserve a ``slap on the 
wrist'' punishment, a fine that will barely dent Microsoft's 
enormous supply of cash. Nor does it deserve the chance to further 
its monopoly via software ``donations'' that cost next to 
nothing to produce. ``Infinitely more than nine'' 
[email protected] http://www.metalbat.com



MTC-00017621

From: JD Frazer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement appears not only ineffective, but sets a 
precedent for Microsoft to do as it wishes with little fear from the 
government.
    I recommend scrapping the settlement and taking Microsoft to 
task.
    JD Frazer
    [email protected]



MTC-00017622

From: Brandon Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Brandon Stephens
    Network Security Administrator
    CFD Research Corporation
    215 Wynn Drive
    Huntsville, AL 35805
    Tel: (256)726-4890
    Fax: (256)726-4806
    Email: [email protected]
    http://www.cfdrc.com



MTC-00017623

From: Steve Bratt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-Not in Favor
    I am a computer professional who has been a user of all forms of 
software on various platforms for years. I have always felt that 
Microsoft abused it's position in the marketplace in various ways, 
and was happy to see action taken by the government to document and 
curtail this behavior. Unfortunately, my opinion of the proposed 
settlement is that it will do little or nothing to curb Microsoft's 
core behavior. It may make it harder for them abuse monopoly power 
in a few specific segments of the market defined in the settlement, 
but it will not make it impossible, and does nothing to curtail this 
behavior in other areas.
    Please register me as a citizen NOT IN FAVOR of the proposed 
settlemt agreement.
    Thank you for your time.
    Steven Bratt
    Brush Prairie, WA



MTC-00017624

From: tack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the proposed settlement to Microsoft antitrust 
case. It contains loopholes designed to let Microsoft continue to 
act as

[[Page 26439]]

a bully and a monopolist. As we have seen that it's 1994 consent 
decree did not deter Microsoft from engaging in heavy handed illegal 
business practices outlined in the findings of fact in the current 
case, we must conclude that any settlement in this action may not 
deter Microsoft from doing so in the future.
    I believe that the proposed settlement is inadequate as a means 
of stopping the illegal, economically damaging business practices at 
Microsoft corporation. By not offering any form of punishment for 
past illegal acts and introducing a series of loopholes, 
vaguearities and secrecy provisions, it offers no relief from past 
wrongs and fails to prevent it from committing further illegal acts.
    Microsoft is a convicted illegal business practicioner which has 
damaged our economy. It should not be allowed to get away with it or 
continue to do so in the future. The current settlement does nothing 
to address this, and will likely lead to continued illegal activity. 
It must not stand.
    Daniel Trudell
    Castro Valley, CA



MTC-00017625

From: Gary D. Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I just want to comment that I feel accepting a settlement with 
Microsoft is a bad thing. One thing which Microsoft is known to do 
in the present (not legally proven, but widely known among technical 
professionals) is to threaten (sometimes legal) action against 
companies which attempt to provide alternate emulations of 
Microsoft's products. What this means, is that companies without the 
deep pockets necessary to develop something from scratch, or 
companies without the corporate muscle of Microsoft in pushing 
standards are unable to provide working alternatives. Accepting a 
settlement of any sort with them, only encourages Microsoft to 
continue the games they played with browsers, hard drive error 
scanning software, compression software, authentication, and other 
niches that reduce consumer options. If consumers having options is 
considered a good thing in the marketplace, decline the settlement. 
If consumers having no choice is a good thing, then we are all 
vulnerable to the same windows viruses, and all vulnerable to 
whatever corporate whim Microsoft may decide upon.
    Gary D. Young
    US Citizen, resident of SF Bay Area, CA.



MTC-00017626

From: carmine mangione
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement must be stopped for the 
following reasons: It fails to address the single most significant 
factor in Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power: their use of file 
formats to limit alternatives to their products, force consumers to 
upgrade to the latest version, and extend their hegemony to other 
markets.
    Microsoft's word processing product, Word, uses an unpublished, 
undocumented and non-standard compliant .doc format. Microsoft has 
changed this format no less than 5 times over the past 10 years. 
These changes force everyone in an organization to upgrade to the 
latest version of Word if a single user upgrades. These upgrades are 
often forced with purchase of new equipment or upgrades of seemingly 
unrelated components such as the operating system as Microsoft only 
supports the latest versions of their software.
    Microsoft's half-hearted attemtps to allow users save documents 
in previous versions fail for two reasons. First, the ``save 
as'' option often loses valuable formatting information and 
second, they do not change the extension name of the format as other 
vendors do. For example, .doc95, .doc98, and .doc00 make it clear 
which version a file is saved in so a user can send the correct 
version out. Microsoft, mysteriously saves all files as .doc. Most 
other vendors change their extensions when they make changes to file 
formats that may break older version.
    The solution:
    1. Require microsoft to publish their file formats and to 
publish and open for review any format changes through one of the 
independant standards bodies.
    2. Require Microsoft to provide free upgrades to all previous 
versions of thier software that will allow those versions to read 
any new formats flawlessly.
    Thank you,
    Carmine Mangione



MTC-00017627

From: Hartley, Jonathan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:43pm
Subject: microsoft proposed final judgement
    I appreciate the great amount of work that has gone into 
producing the proposed final judgement to date. However, the 
settlement in its current form seems to overlook several important 
issues, and as such it is inadequate in curtailing Microsoft's past 
and current anti-competative practices, to the great detriment of 
consumers, rival technologies, and the computing industry as a 
whole.
    In particular, I would like to see measures taken to prevent 
Microsoft from penalising OEMs who choose to ship PCs with other 
operating systems pre-installed. As far as I can see, section 
III.A.2 allows them to continue doing this. This practice 
effectively stifles any competing operating system from gaining a 
significant foothold in the marketplace, regardless of the merits of 
functionality, price or reliability that other operating systems may 
have to offer. Section III.B also seems to allow unfair penalizing 
of OEMs that choose to offer competing products.
    Additionally, I would like to see steps taken to prevent 
Microsoft end-user licence agreements from prohibiting my choice of 
using non-Microsoft operating systems or products. The PFJ as 
currently stated does not prohibit these kinds of overly-restrictive 
EULAs.
    Sincere thanks for this opportunity to express my views,
    Jon
    Ten years experience in the software industry
    Senior Software Engineer
    SchlumbergerSema
    Denver, USA
    Jonathan Hartley E-mail:[email protected]
    SchlumbergerSema Work:(303) 741 8597
    Title: Code Poet Fax:(303) 741 8348
    Snail: 6399 S. Fiddler's Green Cir,
    Suite #600, Englewood, CO http://tartley.com
    80111-4743 Home:(303) 777 8925
    ICBM: 39 36'1.6N, 104 53'28.7W Cell:(303) 
475 6780



MTC-00017629

From: Billy Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am for the proposed settlement even though I think the case 
should be dismissed because the court incorrectly narrows the 
``industry'' being monopolized to just Microsoft's 
customers. If the same reasoning were applied to, say, Oracle then 
the ``industry'' would then be narrowed to just Oracle's 
customers and, lo and behold, Oracle is then a monopoly. Like Sun. 
Like IBM. Like the corner shoe repair shop.
    Why on earth would you limit the huge computer software industry 
to just the tiny sliver that runs on computers that are arbitrarily 
labeled desktops? A computer is a computer. Software is software. 
All together they are an industry. Why draw the line at just 
Microsoft's customers? This whole case is nothing but a sham, an 
unjust way of using the courts to reward the uncompetitive practices 
of Microsoft's rivals.
    Billy Fuller
    Microsoft Employee



MTC-00017630

From: Peter Somu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00017631

From: Josh Cockey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is a bit like 
assigning a fox to guard your chicken coop in that it virtually 
guarantees Microsoft a lock on an endless series of software 
upgrades that the recipients can ill afford. If they could afford 
the technology, they wouldn't need the handout and if they can't 
afford the upgrades, the computers and software will rapidly become 
obsolete and of limited use.
    The counterproposal put forward by Red Hat makes much more 
sense: ie, Let Microsoft donate money for hardware computing 
resources for underfunded schools, then load those machines with 
open-source software.
    Open-source software will have two benefits. First, it will set 
schools on a course that they can afford. The cost of obtaining 
open-source software and upgrades is

[[Page 26440]]

minimal. Secondly, the Red Hat proposal does not reward Microsoft in 
the long term.
    The currently proposed settlement merely provides Microsoft with 
a guaranteed long-term cash cow instead of punishment for corporate 
misdeeds resulting in market domination.
    Josh Cockey E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00017632

From: Mark Hernandez
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the present settlement terms offered to the 
Microsoft Corporation as doing nothing to prevent or limit the 
ability of Microsoft to act as a monopoly, or to prevent or limit 
the ability of Microsoft to act adversely against those that it 
deems to be competitors or critics.
    The long and well-documented history of Microsoft parallels that 
of many of the trusts and monopolies that it has been the policy and 
practice of the United States to prevent or, in the worst of cases, 
dismantle and separate.
    Likewise, this settlement does not provide for the free market 
economy that it is the policy of the United States to support; by 
failing to actively limit the monopolistic actions of Microsoft, 
already determined in a court of law, the Department of Justice is 
endorsing the concept that ``competition is bad'' and that 
no other software developer or vendor may be able to compete with 
the burgeoning Microsoft structure. Consumers, as well as commercial 
enterprises, will be forced not to pay market prices based on 
competition, but prices set at already arbitrary levels that are 
likely to go even higher in relation to future sales.
    Please do not allow the settlement to be completed as it is 
currently written, nor with the thrust of its offer standing in any 
future version of it.
    With this settlement, the Microsoft monopoly will continue to 
stifle competition and stagnate the computer industry by closing any 
avenue that Microsoft does not approve of, as historical 
documentation clearly indicates is the Microsoft pattern of 
preserving itself.
    Mark Hernandez, A+, APS, CCSP-Technician
    Valley Network Solutions-Providing Excellence in 
Technology(tm)
    Email: [email protected] * URL: www.vns.net
    Voice: (559) 650-2600 * Fax: (559) 650-2601
    364 West Fallbrook Avenue, #101 * Fresno, California 
93711-6148



MTC-00017633

From: M.A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:43pm
Subject: I don't think it would be a fair settlement. It doesn't 
have enough
    I don't think it would be a fair settlement. It doesn't have 
enough teeth to stop them from future monopolistic abuses.
    Nelson P. Wolf



MTC-00017634

From: Dhillon, Apperjit
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:43pm
    I am not in favor of the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
This is not punitive in anyway, and does NOT benefit the public 
interest. The DOJ is allowing a company that has been determined a 
monopoly to supply schoolchildren with software that will ensure 
their continued monopolization of their market.



MTC-00017635

From: Stan Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don't let Microsoft off the hook so easily. I am founder of a 
company that makes programs for Palm-Pilot devices, and we already 
see the illegal sorts of tactics Microsoft used to crush Netscape 
coming up to crush Palm OS.
    Unless Microsoft is split up, this will never stop, and no other 
company or technology will be able to compete and survive.
    Stan Hunter
    Founder, Xenware
    [email protected]
    phone: (617) 216-9814
    fax: (617) 547-5297
    http://www.xenware.com/
    http://store.yahoo.com/xenware



MTC-00017636

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I would like to express my concern over the proposed settlement 
in the U.S. Department of Justice vs. Microsoft case. I use both 
open source and proprietary software, Linux being my primary 
operating system for work and Microsoft Windows being the choice for 
our family's home computers. I was brought up with both Unix and 
Microsoft operating systems, so I feel that I can speak objectively, 
at least from a technical perspective.
    My reactions and recommendations are in response to the fact 
that Microsoft was found by the legal system to have broken the law. 
It grew to and maintained a monopoly by illegal means, so actions 
must be taken to restore a competitive environment.
    I have two recommendations:
    1. Force Microsoft to document their proprietary file formats. 
This is probably the single most effective way to restore 
competition. Microsoft has a stranglehold on the word processing (MS 
Word) and presentation (MS Powerpoint) markets, not because its 
products are superior but because of illegal practices. The need to 
read and write files in those formats is now critical for the 
exchange of information. If other software companies could 
effectively and completely import and export Word and Powerpoint 
files, competition would be restored.
    2. Do not allow Microsoft to give software and hardware to 
schools as their ``punishment''. This proposal is a gift 
to them, not to the country! It is anything but punishment. Imagine 
all the schools that will be locked into future upgrades of 
Microsoft products, and the way our youth will be conditioned to 
working the Microsoft way. If Microsoft truly wants to help our 
educational system, have them donate the money, not the software or 
hardware, with no strings attached.
    Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    Jeffrey R. Key
    4959 Blue Spruce Circle
    Middleton, WI 53562
    (608) 798-4998



MTC-00017637

From: Mark Hammer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:44pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Judgement
    To whom it may concern:
    This is likely to be one of the more far-reaching cases in 
recent memory.
    I am not a lawyer. ``I don't know a Habis from a 
Corpus,'' the old movie line says. However I think I know 
justice, and this settlement just does not feel like justice. It 
fails the duck test. ``If it looks like a duck...''
    There are several things that concern me with the proposed 
settlement. The first being Microsoft's past behavior.
    Have they shown any inclination to respect the rule of law, 
except where it benefits them? Have you forgotten the arrogance they 
showed in Judge Jackson's courtroom? The arrogance that caused even 
that conservative, pro-business Reagan appointee to roll his eyes in 
disbelief? Have you forgotten the doctored video evidence? How about 
Bill Gates'' taped testimony?
    Have they shown any inclination in the past to honor 
``Gentlemen's Agreements'' when it was to their advantage 
not to? What happened to the original agreement between Microsoft 
and the DOJ? What has happened to countless companies large and 
small that Microsoft has cajoled down the garden path, then turned 
and ruthlessly stabbed in the back? So what has changed? What causes 
the DOJ to think that Microsoft will now honor the spirit as well as 
the letter of your settlement? Is it just ``a scrap of 
paper'', as Churchill said about another agreement with a 
ruthless predator.
    I am also concerned about the principle that no one is above the 
law. What will happen if Microsoft gets off with a wrist slap and is 
free to go on their merry way, especially in light of the Enron 
mess? What will the perception be?
    At the very least, Microsoft should be forced to release to the 
public the programming interfaces and the data formats of all their 
software. This includes data packets and files. AT&T was 
required to provide access to their system to their competitors. 
Microsoft should be required to do the same.
    The pre-package agreements with the OEMs are used by Microsoft 
to restrain trade and maintain their monopoly. A simple solution is 
to require Microsoft to buy back at published retail prices any 
software the end-user does not want that comes bundled with a 
computer. This must be made the responsibility of Microsoft, not the 
OEMs. They must not be able to duck it. This solution has the simple 
elegance of solving the core problem, without major upheaval.

[[Page 26441]]

Remember, the DOJ won, Microsoft lost. If the Government of the 
United States has to go down this path again, it will be a lot 
harder next time. That ``scrap of paper'' eventually led 
to World War II.
    Sincerely,
    Mark B. Hammer



MTC-00017638

From: B. Charles Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I would like to add my name to the long, long list of those who 
are dissatisfied with the proposed settlement of the Department of 
Justice vs. Microsoft antitrust case. I am especially concerned in 
the light of the following: http://www.macintouch.com/
postoffice.html
    I am deeply dissatisfied in the entirety of how this case was 
handled. No attempt was made to convict under the Rice Anti-
Organized Crime act even though the evidence presented at trial 
shows a long and flagrant history of criminal activities (predicate 
fellony: copyright violation in MS DOS 1.0 and no attempt to license 
the plagiarized code.)
    The proposed settlement does not include prison time for the 
officers or board of directors [of Microsoft.]
    It does not include a siezure of all assets of the criminal 
organization [Microsoft.] It does not include a revocation of all 
patents and copyrights of the criminal organization [Microsoft.] It 
does not include a complete dissolution of the criminal 
organization[Microsoft.]
    Furthermore, the federal government maintains software contracts 
with the criminal organization [Microsoft.] This is not excusable. 
It encourages the the criminal organization [Microsoft] to continue 
its activities. Revoking these contracts en masse and replacing the 
software with alternatives-there may be no competition, but 
there are alternatives-will inform your employers, the People 
of the United States of America, that you are actually interested in 
doing business with legitimate business entities, rather than 
criminal organizations such as Microsoft.
    However, since the prosecution failed to present a case for the 
Rice Anti-Organized Crime Act and limited prosecution to 
anticompetitive practices, all of this is immaterial. Still, the 
settlement is not strong enough. Microsoft Corporation is wealthy 
enough that no monetary settlement (such as the proposal to supply 
schools with computers, software and training-which will only 
INCREASE Microsoft's position in the marketplace) will 
satisfactorily harm the company.
    Definitions of terms such as API, Microsfot Middleware, 
Microsoft Middleware Product and Windows Operating System Product 
are not strong enough and leave too many holes for the criminal 
organization [Microsoft] to exploit to the continuation of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry (Findings of Fact, Paragraph 52.)
    I hope my comments are helpful.
    B. Charles Reynolds
    P.O. Box 3341
    Seward, AK 99664-3341



MTC-00017639

From: Dan Meriwether
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I feel that the proposed remedy for Microsoft's anticompetitive 
and monopolistic practices is inadequate in the extreme. I believe 
the proposed settlement not only doesn't deter Microsoft, but 
because of the complete lack of any realistic punishment, encourages 
Microsoft to continue acting in an illegal, monopolistic and anti-
competitive manner.
    By not prohibiting or reparing any of the staggering amount of 
damage caused by Microsoft's illegal conduct, such as failure to 
prohibit intentional incompatibilities, while lacking an effective 
enforcement mechanism in the actions it does require, the proposed 
final settlement is not even a slap on the wrist, but rather a sly 
wink or pat on the back.
    There are so many problems with the proposed final settlement 
that, in my opinion, it is not in the public interest.
    Dan Meriwether
    6114 La Salle Ave. PMB222
    Oakland, CA 94611-2820



MTC-00017640

From: Kelly White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer, a consumer, and a concerned citizen, 
and I believe that the proposed settlement doesn't go far enough in 
stopping Microsoft from extending their monopoly into other markets. 
Microsoft has crushed its competitors and in doing so can be viewed 
as one of the causes of the current recession.
    If Microsoft is allowed to enter other markets and continue its 
practice of illegally crushing the competitors there, what will the 
future economy look like?
    I ask you, why isn't Microsoft being punished for their illegal 
actions? How am I supposed to teach my daughter not to break the 
law, when Microsoft does so and is then given the blessing of the 
government to continue doing so? Where is justice? Why does the 
American government spend so many resources going after Osama Bin 
Laden when they don't even punish the company that has single-
handedly ransacked America. Microsoft-by their illegal 
actions-has ruined hundreds of companies and caused the 
unemployment of thousands of people. What kind of faith can I put in 
my government when I see that this will be allowed to continue to 
happen?
    I want consumer choice, I want to be able to purchase software 
and other products based on the merit that matters to me, not 
because Microsoft is the only choice available. Please restore this 
ability to me by discarding the proposed settlement and punishing 
Microsoft as they need to be punished.
    Sincerely,
    Kelly McKhendry White
    305 Cottage Place
    Idaho Falls, ID 83402
    (208) 524-2043
    [email protected]



MTC-00017641

From: Dexter Graphic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division: You 
asked for public comments under the Tunney Act on the Microsoft 
Antitrust Settlement, well, here is my opinion.
    Microsoft has already been found guilty of misusing their 
monopoly power. Now punish them for it! The currently proposed 
settlement is a joke, it does not address any of the core issues. 
The only way other software companies can compete with Microsoft, or 
even survive in its shadow, is if the API (Application Programming 
Interface) which Microsoft uses to write programs that work with 
Windows is made available to all parties, free of charge, without 
licensing restrictions. These interfaces are what every programmer 
needs to know and use if they want to write Windows software; by 
exercising proprietary control over the APIs Microsoft effectively 
controls all the software that is written for Windows and holds 
dominion over every company or individual programmer, like myself, 
who wants to innovate in the computer technology field. This is the 
key to Microsoft's monopoly power! And by requiring them to openly 
publish the Windows API's (just the programming interface 
specifications not the program's source code) other software 
companies and individual programmers will be able to compete with 
them on a level playing field.
    Any settlement that does not require this is just a waste of 
time and money. It's a minimum requirement, in my opinion, for 
achieving competitive fairness and fostering an industry-wide 
environment of real software innovation. Thanks for asking (and 
hopefully listening.)
    Dexter Graphic
    Independent Computer Consultant and Systems Analyst
    Eugene, Oregon



MTC-00017642

From: Mark Lanz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement fails to accomplish any real protection 
to consumers or other corporations. Microsoft will be free to 
continue their anticompetitive practices.
    Thank you for your consideration of my comments,
    Mark Lanz



MTC-00017643

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

[[Page 26442]]

Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing in order to submit my comments on the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgement. While the settlement makes a good start, I 
feel it is inadequate overall and leaves possible loopholes open for 
exploitation. The past behavior of the guilty party indicates that 
it is likely to do everything in it's power to minimize the effect 
of the proposed settlement. This behavior includes the guilty 
parties behavior with respect to the last ``Consent 
Decree'' which it agreed upon with the Government as well as 
it's current refusal to admit guilt or even concede that it has 
misbehaved at all. In all respects, Microsoft behaves as an 
unrepentant career criminal. As such, it is not deserving of mercy 
from the court. I fear that the Proposed Judgement may allow the 
guilty party to escape relatively unscathed.
    Section III, Prohibitied Conduct, attempts to address the guilty 
parties relationship with OEM vendors. It is well known that this 
has been a well-used tool in the past to keep OEM hardware vendors 
in line. It can be expected that Microsoft will take advantage of 
any loophole it finds in Section III in order to continue this 
behavior. As such, Section III should be as simple as possible. I 
would suggest modifying paragraph B with two changes. First, the 
``schedule'' of prices should be publicly available via 
the web. There is no reason to keep the prices confidential. The end 
consumers of Windows have every right to know the true value of that 
component of their computer. I also feel that clause 3. (``the 
schedule may include market development allowances...'') should 
be stricken. Despite the attempt to close the obvious loophole, I 
doubt that it will prevent the guilty party from resuming past 
behavior. Microsoft is literally making more money than it knows 
what to do with. I can very well pay it's own marketing and 
development costs. Allowing it to make these side agreements with 
OEMs only serves the purpose of giving it an avenue to reward 
favored OEMs at the expense of other OEMs. The relationship between 
Microsoft and OEMs should consist of the act of selling software 
period. Allowing any other relationship simply opens an avenue for 
abuse.
    Paragraph D should also be modified. While it is a good idea to 
require Microsoft to publish the API's used by Microsoft Middleware, 
there is no reason to allow the guilty party to restrict access to 
the ``MSDN''. The simply gives the guilty party an avenue 
to require developers to agree to licenses or terms of use. For 
example, access to ``MSDN'' now requires a 
``Passport'' account. It is entirely inappropriate to 
allow Microsoft to condition access to the API's upon accepting 
their attempt to extend their monopoly to online authentication. 
Microsoft should be required to publish the API's on the web without 
any need for either registration or authentication.
    An oversight of the API provisions is that it does not apply to 
file formats. One of the goals of the Judgement should be to try and 
restore competition to the desktop operating system market. One of 
the anchors of the Microsoft monopoly which was not specifically 
addresses in the most recent case is the Microsoft Office product. 
One of the greatest stumbling blocks for potential competetors on 
the desktop is the need of people to be able to read and write files 
in the various Office formats (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.) By 
constantly changing these formats with each upgrade and not 
providing comprehensive documentation on their structure, Microsoft 
has been able to maintain a significant barrier to entry into the 
desktop operating system market. By including file formats along 
with API's and communication protocols the Court can greatly enhance 
the opportunity for competing products to become established in the 
operating system market. Paragraph J should be stricken entirely. It 
has at least two fatal flaws.
    One is the axiom that security thru obscurity is no security at 
all. By allowing Microsoft to use security as an reason to refuse to 
release communication protocols and APIs it encourages them to 
design security solutions which do not provide strong security, but 
rather merely the illusion of security. Given the predominance of 
Microsoft operating systems and the past abysmal security 
performance of their products, it isn't wise to provide an incentive 
for them produce poor solutions going foreware. The second fatal 
flaw, which is perhaps more important, is that this clause provides 
a loophole which will allow Microsoft to avoid paragraphs D thru I. 
Recent pronouncements from the guily party and Bill Gates indicate 
that security will be given the highest priority going forward. Most 
significant uses of network protocols involve some amount of 
authentication. Digital rights management and virus protection can 
be incorporated into virtually all aspects of operating system 
functionality. In fact, these technologies work best when they are 
prevalent thruout the system. These facts, along with the guilty 
parties abuse of loopholes in previous agreements, indicates that 
paragraph J will likely be used as a method of invalidating 
paragraphs D thru I. The court should either strike paragraph J, or 
strike paragraph D thru J. The current agreement will end up 
imposing little to no restraint on the convicted party.
    Section IV, while it contains a good start, falls a little 
short. While the Judgement contains good provisions for determining 
if the convicted party is complying with the Judgement, there are no 
clear penalties for breaking the agreement. In fact, the extent of 
refusing to comply with the court ordered judgment seems to be the 
application of more court orders. To date, court orders have not had 
any significant impact on the convicted parties conduct. Rather, it 
has managed to accumulate profits at an almost unbelievable rate. 
Any significant penalty should involve significant monetary fines. 
While the need and amount of fines for previous criminal actions 
could be argued endlessly, the court should at a minimum include 
provisions for significant fines going forward should Microsoft 
refuse to yield to the authority of the court. Such fines should be 
commensurate with the revenues and profits of Microsoft. In the most 
recent quarter, the guilty party profited at the rate of about 
$20,000,000 per day. Revenues were about four times that amount. In 
order for a fine to have any sting, I feel that at a minimum it 
should accrue at the rate of their profits. In other words, the 
Judgement should contain language which would impose a fine of at 
least $20,000,000 per day that the convicted party is not in 
compliance with the Judgement. To date, Microsoft has employed a 
strategy of legal delay at almost every turn. The reason is clear: 
while issues are dragged out in court the damage is being done in 
the market. By the time the court is able to issue a remedy, 
Microsoft has already accomplished whatever it set out to do in the 
first place. By imposing significant fines, the court can discourage 
such delays in the future in addition to ensuring actual penalties 
for violation of the Judgement.
    In conclusion, I hope the court takes some of these ideas into 
consideration before rendering a final judgement. To be honest, I am 
amazed at the lengths to which the Court has gone to please the 
convicted. The fact is that Microsoft is not simply guilty, but is a 
repeat offender who has shown no signs or remorse nor even 
acknowldged that it has broken the law. Rather than issuing a swift 
and severe punishment as befits such a disrepectful repeat offender, 
the Court seems to be bending over backwards in order the please the 
convicted. Quite frankly, in this day and age, I see no reason to be 
soft on such a criminal organization whose disrespect for the Court 
includes the falsification of evidence and who shows no signs of 
even understanding the relevant law much less admitting that the law 
applies to them.
    -David Mitchell
    David Mitchell ([email protected]) Network Engineer IV I
    I Tel: (303) 497-1845 National Center for
    FAX: (303) 497-1818 Atmospheric Research I



MTC-00017644

From: Knipp, Eric
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The microsoft settlement does not address the concerns of 
illegal and unfair practices in pushing its products onto its 
distribution partners. Microsoft has used its dominant position in 
the software market to unfair advantage, locking potential 
compeitors out of the picture by arm-twisting and flat-out 
threatening its distribution partners. This has resulted in a severe 
imbalance in the software market, creating a scenario where 
Microsoft increasingly wields more power to dictate what consumers 
are ultimately able to buy; no longer are we in a free market where 
software is concerned, we are rather entering into an era where one 
company decides what all consumers have the priviledge to buy, and 
now Washington is going to help them do it.
    I am not satisfied with the government's handling of the 
Microsoft case and I want to see it revisited. Unless Microsoft is 
truly punished and prevented from continuing its unfair practices, I 
do not see a bright future for the software industry (except where 
Microsoft alone is concerned).

[[Page 26443]]

    Eric Knipp



MTC-00017645

From: Dewey Paciaffi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Dewey Paciaffi
    76 Main Street
    Englishtown, NJ 07726



MTC-00017646

From: surina@ds02e00. directory.ray.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jan. 23, 2002
    To: Renata B. Hesse, or other concerned parties
    Re: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Thanks for taking public comments on these types of activities.
    I think it is of value to get a feel for public opinion. 
Although I often value the opinions of those around me, there are 
certain times when the application of logic, rational behavior, and 
extraction and analysis of fact is quite approprite.
    Such as in cases like this, for example. The facts are that this 
company's key stakeholders and practices, and those of other closely 
related industries such as media, combined with the actions of the 
trading community and elected represenatives have now put a 
substatial portion of federal, state and teacher pensions at risk.
    Coupling content and the wire puts objective journalism at risk, 
which compromises the integrity of our country. It is time for the 
Judiciary to step up to the plate and fix some problems here, 
related with this company and some of the other trusts and 
associations that have cornered markets and brutalized civil 
liberties in the interest of policing their businesses.
    There is no free market economy now. From a systems perspective, 
our national and global economies are now self limited, and unless 
the markets are tuned with proper regulation designed to actually 
set free Adam Smith's invisible hand, (admittedly a contradiction at 
first read), several national economies will self destruct. Quite 
probably our own will be among them.
    Consider, if nothing else, the data that is coming out of our 
federal accounting offices. Difficult times are ahead of our nation 
now, for the decedance and lack of proper regulation over the last 
decade, particularly the lack of disciplined monetary policy. It's 
time to properly tune the system and work to re-establish a healthy, 
diverse national and hopefully a healthy global economy will follow.
    Please work to bring these players in check. They are out of 
control and are destroying this country.
    Kindest Regards,
    Dave Surina B.S.E.E.
    McKinney, TX



MTC-00017647

From: Philip Labut
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea, and only benefits Microsoft who 
are the ones at fault!
    Philip Labut
    1820 Falls Ave
    Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223



MTC-00017648

From: Bruce Mallett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
U.S Dept. of Justice Antitrust Division
601D Street NW-Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I'd like to add my comments to the proposed Microsoft settlement 
as permitted under the Tunney Act. Briefly let me say that I agree 
with the comments made by Mr. Dan Kegel (see http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html) and encourage you to have a look at his 
analysis. I too do not believe that the proposed settlement is in 
the public interest.
    I believe that a competitive marketplace is better for both the 
consumer and for the advancement of the market. Microsoft, as a 
monopoly, has repeatedly worked to stifle such competion, clearly 
succeeding to the detriment of the market. Innovation is key to the 
advancement of the computer software industry, but in a stifled, 
monopolized market this process ceases; the word instead is co-opted 
as a marketing term.
    I hope that you will reconsider the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce A. Mallett
    NightStorm Software Systems, Inc.
    25 Indian Rock Road #10
    Windham, NH 03087



MTC-00017649

From: Rick Richardson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea, and 
flawed in many areas. It does not punish Microsoft, and it does not 
equalize the marketplace by providing all independant software 
developers access to the documentation and source code for Microsoft 
file formats and operating systems.
    Instead, I urge you to accept the ``Red Hat Proposal to 
Enhance Microsoft Settlement Offer By Providing Open Source Software 
to All U.S. School Districts''. http://www.redhat.com/about/
presscenter/2001/press-usschools.html
    I believe this proposal will effect a real punishment to the 
Microsoft Corporation, a punishment that is sorely missing from the 
current settlement agreement.
    In addition, this settlement proposal will have a real benefit 
to school districts across the nation, who will be able to focus 
their limited resources on computer hardware purchases.
    Microsoft's current settlement proposal is completely flawed. 
For Microsoft it is not a donation at all. Once they've written the 
software, each particular copy only costs them the price of a 
CD-a mass-produced one at that, probably $0.50. By making more 
copies of MS-Windows to give away, they essentially print money: 
money in the form of a tax writeoff. Each copy of MS-Windows donated 
to a charity gets Microsoft a $300 tax writeoff (charitable 
donation) for a 50-cent disk, and serves to expand the Microsoft 
platform dominance.
    Giving away Windows is win-win-win for Microsoft. Just be aware: 
using their pricing for copies of Windows distributed as part of the 
settlement inflates the actual value of that settlement by a factor 
of about 500, and helps to perpetuate their monopoly.
    If you cannot bring yourself to accept RedHat's proposal as is, 
then consider an alternative: let Microsoft donate $1.1 billion 
worth of software to the school systems. But demand that it be their 
competitor's software (preferrably Linux and other commercially- 
available Open-Source software). For example, let Microsoft donate 
approximately 10,000-20,000 boxed sets of either RedHat, 
Mandrake, Suse, etc, for the existing PCs in the schools. This will 
put significant cash flow in the high-tech industry, help further 
their competitors, and actually punish Microsoft.
    -Rick Richardson
    Rick Richardson [email protected] http://home.mn.rr.com/
richardsons/



MTC-00017650

From: Alwin Hawkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my misgivings over the settlement in the 
Microsoft case. It seems to me that nothing short of requiring 
Microsoft to standardize and publicise it's API's and Office file 
formats will allow other operating systems to compete in the 
marketplace.
    Other findings/settlements will put cash in the pockets of 
attorneys but do little to encourage other companies to write 
software that provides a functional alternative to Microsoft-
authored products.
    Yours very truly,
    Alwin Hawkins
    18550 McCall Court
    Gladstone, OR 97027
    [email protected]



MTC-00017651

From: Ryan Neil Gillespie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the court's actions against Microsoft are 
essentially ineffective and allow Microsoft to continue its monopoly 
practices. I urge the court the reconsider their decision and 
deliver a truly just punishment.
    Thank you,
    Ryan Gillespie



MTC-00017652

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm

[[Page 26444]]

Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To: Dept. of Justice
    Good day. I would like to thank you in advance for considering 
my, and other citizens', opinions in this matter. It is rare that 
the democratic process is applied so directly to a specific issue. 
Yet in this case I do beleive it to be justified. The Microsoft 
issue is one which affects every American, whether they are 
conscious of this fact or not.
    It is no surprise that computer technology has become an ever 
increasing component of our economy. Rare is the worker in this 
nation that would not have some interaction with a computer on any 
given day.
    This could refer to myself, who works in an office. It could 
refer to a high school kid who uses the computer register at a 
coffee shop or restaurant. My point being, if an American citizen 
wishes to work in this country, the computer is inescapable. It is a 
tool most every American will have to use in some capacity. 
Therefore, it is a tool which must be open to innovation. A tool 
which must be secure.
    Microsoft has for too long stifled others from developing 
competing programs. Now, I will confess. I am not a computer guy. I 
don't write code. Have never opened up a computer to install 
anything.
    Don't even subscribe to Wired. But I do know that when I have 
attempted to run non-MS applications with Windows, I have run into 
compatablity issues. When an application that does run well on MS 
OS, within a year or two it is beaten out of the system. I have seen 
the death of Netscape at the hands of Internet Explorer. I have seen 
WordPerfect killed by Word. I have seen this countless times with 
other applications. And this is not because MS products are the 
best. It's because I wake up one day to find I have no choice but to 
use Internet Explorer. My other options have been taken away, or so 
marginalized that in order to view web-sites, I need IE. This is not 
consumer choice. This is consumer blackmail. Now, I'm not here to 
disparage MS products. Personally I have found that they crash just 
as frequently as anyone else's. I'd just like to have a proper 
settlement that allows me to choose the crashes I like. And finally, 
with recent events in September, there does seem to be a national 
security issue here.
    Regardless of how great MS might claim to be, regardless of how 
``saintly'' there business acts, it is dangerous to have 
one company's code control so much of the computer market. If a 
foreign or domestic terrorist were to go after our computer network, 
what system model would you want? 90% controlled by one set of code. 
Only one set of code to infect. Only one set of code to find the 
weakness in. Or multiple codes, distributing the network across many 
OSes. This need not mean incompatability. I can read a Word doc on a 
Mac or a PC. Yet it would be difficult to infect the Mac and the PC 
with the same virus/hack. Maybe not impossible, but more time 
consuming. We currently have loaded our target into one convenient 
location for any of our country's enemies. We should no better now. 
The military knows this kind of strategy already. Spread yourself 
out so that in event of attack you may lose a portio n, but not the 
whole.
    In conclusion, the current settlement with Microsoft poorly 
defines their software for legal purposes, does not truly prevent 
further monopolization of the market by Microsoft, and has no 
punitive measures for the damage Microsoft has already inflicted on 
other companies and the American people. This is unacceptable. Teddy 
Roosevelt did better than this last century with breaking up a newly 
emerged economic monopoly. I suggest we study our history on this 
one.
    Thank you for your time and consideration of this letter.
    Sincerely,
    Robert S. LaMorgese
    Citizen



MTC-00017653

From: Patrick St. Jean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing you today in response to the public comment period 
on the proposed settlement. I am opposed to that settlement for 
various reasons, but one of the more important ones, that affects 
many businesses, is that the settlement doesn't ensure that 
Microsoft cannot use preferential licensing agreements to influence 
OEMs decisions to install software.
    For example, I work for a large telecommunications firm that 
uses Windows for some of its internet needs. We have a site license 
with Microsoft for all of their products, but are completely unable 
to buy a server without purchasing another Windows license. This 
costs us many thousands of dollars a year. Whenever I've pressured 
hardware vendors to not include a license in the cost, they have 
refused, stating that their contract with Microsoft (signed in order 
to get preferential pricing) requires them to sell a license with 
every machine. This is bad for big business, but even worse for 
small ones. At least we have a large enough budget that it doesn't 
influence our purchasing decisions. I can't say the same for some 
smaller companies that I've worked for.
    Please reconsider this settlement. The only one who will benefit 
from this is Microsoft. The consumers are going to continue to be 
taken for every dollar Microsoft can get until stronger protections, 
like the ones in the Posner Draft 18, are implemented.
    Thank you for your time,
    Patrick St. Jean
    p.s. If you would like to contact me to verify that I am a real 
person, my contact info is on my web site. The URL is provided 
below.
    Pat in Lewisville ``97 XLH 883 (Rocinante) http://www.pat-
st-jean.com/stjeanp



MTC-00017654

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I don't think that Microsoft is being punished for its 
reprehensible behavior as a anti-competitive monopoly. They have 
abused their power and apparently have strong-armed the DOJ. When I 
see Steve Balmer having coffee with the President and then the 
punitive measures are withdrawn it has the appearance of impropriety 
and makes me lose faith in the American judicial system. Money 
should not be a means to abrogate justice.
    -Richard Doerksen



MTC-00017655

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    Microsoft should be compelled to open/document fully its API to 
other software vendors.
    The current solution as proposed by DOJ assumes that Microsoft 
will behave in a lawful manner, which it has demonstrated through 
the last ten years that it does not feel obliged to do.
    Real competition will make the U.S. software market stronger.
    Ray McCaughey, AIA, NCARB Team Leader
    412.788.1971 x236 Vice President-JSA Architects
    f 412.787.5960 http://www.jsa-architects.com



MTC-00017656

From: Richard A. Milewski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please place me on record as opposing the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft antitrust case. The proposed settlement does not 
effectively require Microsoft to openly document the Application 
Programming Interface (API) of the Windows operating system in a 
meaningful way. If allowed to stand, this settlement will perpetuate 
the Microsoft practice of having a secret, documented API for use by 
Microsoft applications developers, and a less complete, partially 
documented API for use by independent software developers.
    Additionally, allowing Microsoft to continue to engage in 
licensing agreements with large corporations that give Microsoft 
licensing revenue for each machine owned by a corporation that could 
run Windows, instead of each machine that is actually running 
windows, the settlement effectively imposes a tax on non-Windows 
computers and gives the proceeds of that to Microsoft. This 
artificially raises the cost of computers which do not run Windows, 
and those costs are passed on to the customers who use the products 
and services of the licensing corporations. As a consumer, I deeply 
resent having the cost of virtually every product I buy increased 
simply to subsidize the Microsoft monopoly.
    Richard A. Milewski
    CTO, RamPage.Net
    Sunnyvale, California 94087



MTC-00017657

From: Jeff Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wednesday, 23 January, 2002

[[Page 26445]]

Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to add my voice to those crying out against the 
proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
I have found no provisions in the settlement that would effectively 
curb Microsoft's rapacious appetite and anticompetitive behaviour. 
My experience with Microsoft has led me to believe they will stop at 
nothing to own every market in which they compete: even at the 
expense of their customers and partners. A great example is their 
recent attempt to ask the court to grant them a monopoly of the 
education market.
    As a veteran of the software industry with more than a decade 
(yes, in the software industry that does qualify one for veteran 
status) of experience building software for numerous platforms 
including Microsoft Windows, I have never encountered a company with 
such a callous disregard for right and wrong as Microsoft. I have 
experienced their deceitful nature while working for a 
``partner'' organisation (Attachmate) and during a brief 
contract within their own Internal Tools Group. In recent years I 
have been party to discussions regarding new products or services 
that were abandoned for fear Microsoft would disapprove and try to 
put the company out of business. Very few of us have the capital 
necessary to withstand an attack by Microsoft as have Apple, Sun and 
Netscape. This culture of fear can not be good for any environment; 
nor is it good for the consumer for it stifles innovation like 
nothing else can.
    Please consider a remedy with actual teeth that serves the 
consumer rather than Microsoft. Do not forget the way Microsoft 
mocked the original consent decree which started this whole process. 
What could possibly make one believe they would not mock the court 
again?
    Respectfully,
    Jeff Watkins
    1522 Post Alley #209
    Seattle, WA 98101
    206-619-0809



MTC-00017658

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to oppose the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
Antitrust case. As a computer systems manager I have been buying 
Microsoft products for my users for years -- not because they 
were good, which they generally aren't, but because there was no 
practical choice. I read Judge Jackson's findings of fact with great 
interest, and when I was done reading them was hopeful, for the 
first time in many years, that the computer industry had a chance to 
become competitive and innovative again. The findings of fact 
describe a repeated, continuous practice of egregious 
anticompetitive behavior.
    The findings, along Microsoft's behavior in the trial court and 
all of its history make it clear that Microsoft's rapaciousness 
cannot be reined in save by the strongest measures. People far 
better informed than I have pointed out repeatedly that Microsoft 
stifles innovation across large swathes of the software industry.
    In the absence of competition, Microsoft has never felt any need 
to engage in good engineering practice, and their products have been 
vulnerable to the likes of code red, nimda and sircam as the result. 
In a competive market, those viruses wouldn't even make the front 
page, let alone pose the serious threats to the economy and to 
national security. The findings of fact provide a solid basis for 
the Department of Justice to persue a judgement that would restore 
competition to the software industry, which would in turn reduce the 
security risks posed by software monoculture. Yet the The Department 
of Justice's proposed settlement is barely a slap on the wrist. I 
realize it is impossible for a bureaucracy, but the Department of 
Justice should be ashamed; it has not only failed in its duty in 
this matter, it has abdicated it.
    I am a co-signer of Dan Kegel's letter, and you may find my 
criticisms of specific elements of the proposal there. The point I 
wish to make here is that the entire offer is barely worth grossly 
inadequate.
    Carl Alexander
    Watertown, Massachusetts
    [email protected]



MTC-00017659

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    After reading and reviewing the proposed settlement, I cannot in 
good faith, support it. This settlement not only does not punish 
Microsoft, but it could possibly give it more power in the software 
industry. For every clause in the settlement that appears to limit 
Microsoft's power, another clause gives them a loophole out of it. 
It is in my opinion that a much harsher penalty is necessary to curb 
Microsoft's illegal behavior. They have ignored one settlement very 
similar to this one already (which is the entire reason this lawsuit 
began), don't give them the opportunity to ignore a second.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Conrad
    SourceForge Engineering
    VA Software Corporation



MTC-00017660

From: km
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Karen Morod
34808 NE Moss Creek Way
Carnation, WA 98014
January 23, 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 resolved. I do 
not believe Microsoft did anything wrong in the first place. 
Notwithstanding this belief, I think the terms of the settlement 
agreement are more than fair, and will address concerns about any 
perceived anticompetitive behavior on Microsoft's behalf.
    For those who are of the opinion that Microsoft has acted in a 
predatory fashion, concessions have been made that will essentially 
change the way Microsoft conducts its business. Microsoft agreed to 
disclose its internal code information to its competitors in an 
attempt to increase server interoperability.
    They also agreed not to retaliate against software developers 
who promote the competitions'' software. Microsoft has really 
gone above and beyond what should reasonably be expected of them.
    I hope to see the settlement agreement approved by the Court. 
Continuing with the litigation process will serve no one's best 
interests.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Morod



MTC-00017661

From: Kevin A Sesock/cis/evp/Okstate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing in regards to the proposed Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Settlement, and my thoughts and feelings regarding this issue. As 
per the Tunney Act, I am formally submitting my opinions regarding 
this proposed settlement, and how it will affect the IT Community, 
and specifically the Open Source Community at large.
    As a consumer, technician, and private developer regarding Open 
Source and Microsoft Products, I feel that the proposed settlement 
between the Department of Justice and the states involved in the 
lawsuit, and Microsoft Co. itself, is in need of revision. It is my 
opinion that some parts are worded incorrectly, and may either be 
too burdensome in some places, and too ineffectual in others.
    To generalize, I believe that the Microsoft Corporation has 
wronged the American consumer, business, and computer user by 
engaging in anti-competitive behavior, partly because of their 
secrecy, lack of security, and poor design, and partly because of 
their wild marketing and sales of products that do not meet the 
advertising and expectations put forth by these departments (a.k.a. 
false advertising). I also believe that they have been a major 
component in setting back the continued development of computer 
science, program and Operating System design, and the study and 
applicative use of computers in the world around us in a scientific 
and academic environment.
    It is my recommendation, as a U.S. Citizen, concerned 
technician, and Open Source advocate, that the proposed Microsoft 
Corp. Anti-Trust Settlement be revised to include certain items. I 
have reviewed and thoroughly considered Mr. Dan Kegel's Proposal 
(this proposal is located at the World Wide Web address http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy1.html and http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html). I

[[Page 26446]]

believe that these proposed changes tot the Settlement will be 
sufficient in ensuring that Microsoft Corp. cannot continue in anti-
competitive behavior in the future, and will help to once again 
encourage growth and advancement in academic and business related 
computer and IT environments.
    Thank you for your time and assistance.
    Kevin A. Sesock
    Deskside Computer Support Specialist



MTC-00017662

From: Jason Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don't let Microsoft walk away with just a light rap on the 
knuckles. They quash competition at every opportunity. They have no 
right to be a governement sponsored monopoly.



MTC-00017669

From: Brian ``Bex'' Huff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally believe that the antitrust settlement currently 
being proposed is woefully inadequate. If ever there was a monopoly 
that abused its power to crush competition and illegally leverage 
itsself to move into other markets, it is Microsoft.
    And now, to add insult to injury, they suggest as 
``punnishment'' that they be forced to give billions of 
dollars worth of software to schools. The education market has 
always been Apple's core market, and this decision will allow them 
to get a huge stranglehold onto that market as well.
    More likely than not, they will arrange a draconian lease 
arrangement and ensure that the schools will be forced to upgrade 
within 3 years. Even if the lease has no such clause, they will 
probably have to upgrade in that time frame anyway in order to be 
able to run the latest software.
    This ``punnishment'' will simply cost the schools, the 
children, the taxpayers, and the government more money, it will 
seriously hurt Apple computers (Microsoft's only real competitor), 
it will enable them to get a stranglehold into a new market, and not 
in any way cost Microsoft a dime.
    THE PROPOSED MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT MUST BE REJECTED.
    Brian ``Bex'' Huff
    [email protected]
    Phone: 952-903-2023
    Fax: 952-829-5424



MTC-00017670

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Colin Davis. I am a Computer Science Student, in 
Amhest, Massachusetts. I would like to start by saying I am very 
much against the Microsoft proposed settlement.
    I am very concerned regarding the microsoft settlement. They 
ahve shown over and over that they are unscruplous, and will do 
whatever is necessary to make money, regardless of the legalities 
involved. They were proven guilty in the court of law. But this 
settlement does not punish them at all. It ASSISTS their position. 
It helps them to further entrench their monopoly.
    I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. Im only a student. 
But I would like to go on record as saying I believe Microsoft 
should be forced to open their APIs. This was part of the proposed 
states settlement.
    What this means is that Microsoft would have to document, and 
document properly, how to access any system call that their programs 
use. This would stop them from using their monopoly on the desktop 
to help their other programs, because Everyone would have equal 
access to the system calls.
    Early in the history of Microsoft, Microsoft Office would run 
much faster than competing applications, because Microsoft used 
system calls that no-one else was told about. This would stop that, 
as well as allowing Linux, and Apple Imacs to run programs written 
for windows.
    PLEASE, hoever, don't accept the proposed settlement. It only 
further extends their monopoly.....



MTC-00017671

From: Joel Waterman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust 
case will do little to change the monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft. Any settlement which does not severely restrict Microsoft 
from building its products in the Operating Systems, Internet, and 
Applications market will do little to create a fair open computer 
software arena in which competitors are allowed to compete.
    Windows XP has been used as an advertising platform for 
Microsoft products and services, and to lock out competing products. 
Microsoft's unfair practices (oft-referred to as strong-arm) leave 
precious little room for competitors in this environment.
    You needn't look any further than to the open-source community 
for clues as to the state of the software industry. Thousands of 
developers donating their time and valuable skills in order to 
compete against the giant Microsoft. Why would thousands of computer 
programmers take time out of their busy lives to do for free what 
they easily could be paid for elsewhere? Because they want to see 
the project (linux) succeed in the face of MS.
    Because they want an alternative to Windows. Because they aren't 
as naive as the typical home user who has no alternative to 
Microsoft, and they are not satisfied to use a product that forces 
them (or tries to force them) to use software inferior to that which 
they could write or have written...
    To continue to let Microsoft bully their way around the software 
industry is to let that industry die a slow stagnant death. 
Competition and alternative is the only way to keep this huge part 
of the American economy thrive. Without a fair settlement of the MS 
case, this may not be possible. With MS allowed to compete unfairly 
against its rivals in Application and Internet markets by using its 
OS, is to allow them to squash any rival they wish. Please do not 
let this continue to happen.
    Thank you,
    Joel Waterman
    software engineer
    123 Boylston St
    Watertown, MA 02472



MTC-00017672

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:48pm
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to express my disappointment with the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft.
    The settlement addresses only a small fraction of the findings 
of fact.
    Those few issues are addressed in an unenforceable manner. The 
economic production of this monopoly is NOT WORTH THE PRICE in 
innovation, progress and freedom. Always bear in mind that when 
Microsoft uses the word innovate they mean taking the sort of 
standard protocols that have allowed the internet to flourish and 
BREAKING compatibility with other vendors software, creating lock-in 
to their platform. Witness DHTML, NTLM authenticated telnet, 
Microsoft's ``Java'' implementation, the Exchange IMAP 
connector, Jscript (Microsoft's broken JavaScript interpreter), IE 
HTML extensions, the list goes on. This is separate from their 
practice of application, and by extension, OS lock-in with 
byzantine, poorly documented, constantly changing file formats and 
proprietary communications protocols such as ``.doc'' (and 
other Office formats), Exchange/Outlook communication, secret APIs 
for use only by Office and other Microsoft software, SMB, et cetera. 
SMB is a particularly nasty piece of work, which has clearly been 
manipulated for the purpose of crippling work-alike software (i.e. 
Samba) for the purpose of maintaining the fileserver/desktop client 
tie that they worked so hard to oust Novell to achieve.
    The situation only looks to get worse if this settlement is 
finalized. Microsoft's two-way lock-in with Windows and Office is 
solid. They have been attempting to add a third leg. First with the 
server, then with the browser, now with .NET.
    Microsoft wouldn't be ABLE to abuse OEMs if THEY DIDN'T HAVE A 
MONOPOLY. The settlement denies them one avenue of abuse of their 
monopoly, it doesn't address the monopoly.
    Is this monopoly in the public interest? Is it necessary for 
interoperability? Is it needed to motivated Microsoft to continue 
blessing us with their ``innovations''? I am 26 years old, 
and I can just remember my parents being forced to lease their ugly, 
featureless phone from ``The Phone Company.'' Bell made 
the same arguments about interoperability and innovation that 
Microsoft makes today.
    Today I have a cell phone, I pay less for the cell phone 
(accounting for long distance) than my parents paid for their 
featureless home phone. I can call Japan for less than my parents 
paid to call half way across the U.S. My parents suffered cross-
talk, I enjoy digital quality over fibre optic lines. My parents 
called on a leased phone labeled ``Property of Bell 
Telephone''. If you fail, my children will compute with leased 
software labeled ``Property of Microsoft''. If you 
succeed, my

[[Page 26447]]

children will find the fact that I had to run Windows so that I 
could run Office so that I could open .doc attachments so that I 
could get a job . . . quaint.
    This monopoly serves only the monopolist.
    It is the government's job to serve the people. If the 
government fails to act on the people's behalf it is failing to act 
as a government of the people.
    DO NOT ACCEPT THIS SETTLEMENT.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Hutnick
    Citizen



MTC-00017673

From: Ron Voss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comment:
    I suggest that Microsoft's proposal to donate equipment and 
services to schools be modified such that Microsoft would spend an 
agreed amount of money to buy Apple products and services for the 
schools.
    Ronald N. Voss
    1645 Lloyd Way
    Mountain View, CA 94040-2924 -



MTC-00017674

From: Baker, Fred
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Fred Baker
    505 Cypress Point Drive #34, Mountain View, CA 94043



MTC-00017675

From: Brian Strand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgement (PFJ) in the Microsoft antitrust 
case is a very, very bad idea. Any reasonable settlement must a) end 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct (Microsoft's completely predictable 
denials of said conduct notwithstanding), and b) deny Microsoft any 
reward stemming from their unlawful conduct. The PFJ achieves 
neither of these objectives.
    The restrictions placed on Microsoft by the PFJ are far too 
narrow and brittle to effect any changes in Microsoft's behavior.
    The DOJ needs to scrap the fatally flawed PFJ and start over. 
The crime has been established, now is the time to determine the 
punishment.
    Since when did the convicted criminal get to negotiate the 
punishment? There is no need for Microsoft to enjoy or agree with 
their sentence; they merely have to abide by it, subject to the 
usual law enforcement mechanisms.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Strand
    CTO Switch Management
    Oakland, California



MTC-00017676

From: Gardiner Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I vehemently disagree with the currently proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I urge those involved in this decision making process to 
reconsider alternatives. Microsoft is an enormously oppressive 
corporation whose power is restricting the great American inventive 
and entrepreneurial spirit. The currently proposed settlement is an 
affront to freedom.
    Sincerely,
    taxpayer Gardiner Allen



MTC-00017684

From: Jerry Cantwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has been 
convicted of serious offenses against competitors in the computer 
industry and against the American people as well. They have not been 
repentant, but rather defiant. They despise the Department of 
Justice, the Court system, and the American people-their 
customers!
    Please break Microsoft into the smallest pieces possible.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald E. Cantwell



MTC-00017686

From: Josh Levenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. It fails to 
restore competition in the market place. It does little to prevent 
Microsoft from engaging in unfair business practices. Microsoft has 
shown itself to be all too willing to abuse its position and take 
advantage of loopholes.
    Josh Levenberg
    US Citizen
    California resident



MTC-00017687

From: Mike Scheidler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel that the terms of settlement outlined in the Proposed 
Final Judgment are grossly inadequate. They do little to punish 
Microsoft for its past monopolistic actions and allow too many 
loopholes to keep them from continuing these practices in the 
future.
    As a computer professional with over 20 years of experience, I 
have seen firsthand the effect Microsoft has had on the computing 
environment. Through their predatory business practices, undisclosed 
file and interface formats (APIs), and tying of applications to the 
operating system, Microsoft has run its competitors out of business 
and practically eliminated the consumer's choice of software 
products in all of the major application categories. This should 
never have been allowed to happen. To make matters worse, they are 
currently looking to extend their domination to the area of online 
services. For the good of the entire world, this cannot be 
permitted!
    Any settlement in this case should do much more to punish 
Microsoft for its past actions. In my opinion, a harsh punishment 
(perhaps monetary) is essential to make them less likely to engage 
in predatory practices. Also, any settlement must be forward-looking 
enough to ensure that they can't continue to thwart healthy 
competition in the future. The current PFJ does neither of these.
    Please reject the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Michael T. Scheidler
    Unix/NT Engineering System Administrator
    Delphi Automotive Systems-IS&S PHONE: (765) 
451-0319
    Email: [email protected]
    Home Address: 9021 Deer Creek Road, Greentown, IN 46936



MTC-00017688

From: E. Jason Scheck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have been adversely affected over the past fifteen 
years because of Microsoft's business practices.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior 
(plus appropriate punative actions), with the threat of severe 
criminal penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I 
can see will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a 
state of competition.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Jason Scheck
    Portland, OR
    [email protected]



MTC-00017690

From: Trey Chandler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I believe that the entire proposal is a farce as it only 
covers a few of the laws microsoft was and still is breaking. There 
are several unlawful activities specified in the Findings of Fact 
that are not even mentioned in the settlement. It does not make half 
an effort to lower the barrier of entry for competitors. There are 
even exclusions in certian sections that are clear violations of the 
law.
    Please inform the court of my disapproval of this settlement and 
my hope that a real punishment for Microsoft will be realised.
    Thank you
    Charles Chandler



MTC-00017691

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

[[Page 26448]]

Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am against the current terms of the Microsoft Settlement. I do 
not believe that the penalties are strict enough. Microsoft is still 
using it's power to stifle competition, as evidenced by it's recent 
actions toward Java/Sun. More needs to be done to stop this 
behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Partin



MTC-00017692

From: Joshua Swickard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a good and fair.
    Joshua Swickard



MTC-00017693

From: David Wheeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I think that the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    Regards,
    David Wheeler
    President
    Kineticode, Inc.
    David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
    [email protected] ICQ: 15726394



MTC-00017694

From: Nathan Hokanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of the United States, 
a professional in the IT industry and a taxpayer. I am very 
concerned and alarmed at the apparent laziness of the Department of 
Justice. Microsoft has displayed monopolistic attitudes and 
practices for a long time. Simply slapping their hand for past 
behavior is not going to stop the monopolistic practices. If 
anything, the current settlement will send a message to the 
management of Microsoft that they can get away with anything for a 
price.
    The behemoth that is Microsoft must be stopped! If Micorsoft is 
allowed to continue to operate as in the past the market suffers, 
the industry suffers, the consumer suffers, and ultimately the tax 
payer suffers. Since your salaries are paid by the taxpayer, I would 
think it would be in your interests to see Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices curbed.
    If the DOJ is not able to follow the will of the people then 
where do we turn for justice? The American people expect those in 
positions of responsibility to act responsibly. Please do so by not 
accepting a settlement that will hurt the economy in the long run. 
The American way of life is at jeopardy, even if you refuse to 
acknowledge that fact.
    Sincerely,
    Nathan Hokanson
    Denver, CO



MTC-00017695

From: Bob Dehnhardt
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to record my objections to the Proposed Final Judgment 
under the Tunney Act in Microsoft Antitrust Case.
    The PFJ fails to completely address many areas of conduct which 
Microsoft has employed to abuse and enhance their monopoly. Half-
measures are being taken in many cases which leave glaring loopholes 
that will allow Microsoft to continue their ``business as 
usual'' stance.
    One area where this is the case is the Barrier to Entry. The PFJ 
appears to address this section well, forbidding retaliation against 
OEMs, ISVs and IHVs who chose to offer or support alternatives to 
Windows, and ensuring that Windows allows for the use of non-
Microsoft middleware applications.
    However, this section falls short by not providing for a 
competing operating system that could run Windows applications. 
Indeed, sections III.D and III.E enhance Microsoft's monopoly in the 
desktop OS by restricting release of information on Windows APIs to 
``the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating 
System Product''. This effectively precludes the existence of a 
competitive operating system that can work with Windows 
applications, and guarantees a continued Microsoft desktop monopoly. 
This combined with Section III.A.2, which allows Microsoft 
retaliation against OEMs that ship PC containing a competing OS but 
no Microsoft OS, amounts to no change in the Microsoft desktop 
monopoly whatsoever.
    The PFJ also limits its scope to Microsoft Windows 2000 
Professional, XP Home, XP Professional, and their successors, all of 
which run on Intel-compatible processors. This appears to ignore the 
Windows server editions, as well as Windows versions written for 
other processors, namely Windows CE and Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition. As handheld and tablet devices become more widely used and 
available, Microsoft's interest and presence will be felt more 
strongly. Their own website makes mention of this fact at http://
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp , noting 
``The Tablet PC is the next-generation mobile business PC, and 
it will be available from leading computer makers in the second half 
of 2002. The Tablet PC runs the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition and features the capabilities of current business laptops, 
including attached or detachable keyboards and the ability to run 
Windows-based applications.'' By failing to address this area, 
the PFJ is again handing Microsoft an unrestricted monopoly for its 
operating system suite.
    Finally, there is no effective enforcement system in the PFJ. 
The proposed Technical Committee has investigative powers, but 
enforcement is left to the judicial system, which as this case has 
shown, can take years in trials and appeals before a final judgment 
is reached. To a company with deep pockets for legal fees, and a 
large legal staff, this is no deterrent at all.
    I urge you to re-read the Findings of Fact, look at the Barriers 
to Entry that were found to exist, at Microsoft's business practices 
vis-?-vis retaliation against and pressure on OEMs, ISVs and IHVs, 
at Microsoft's anticompetitive business and development practices, 
and do not issue a PFJ until each finding has been fully and 
completely addressed.
    For a far more comprehensive assessment of the PFJ, I urge you 
to look at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html  .
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Bob
    Bob Dehnhardt
    IT Operations Manager-Reno
    Voice (775) 327-6407 Fax (510) 352-6480
    Cell (775) 232-2820
    TriNet
    ePowered HR for Fast Companies
    http://www.trinet.com 



MTC-00017696

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad 
idea. It does not sufficiently prevent anticompetetive practices by 
Microsoft towards competitors and OEMs who would include non-
Microsoft products.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas Paulick
    Oshkosh, WI



MTC-00017697

From: Jake Lauritzen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please break up Microsoft. Microsoft continues to use their 
monopoly power to stifle competition and innovation by other firms. 
This settlement is a complete travesty. Microsoft has already 
violated earlier restrictions on their conduct, and it ought to be 
apparent to anybody by now that there is only one option: Microsoft 
should be broken up, AND have severe conduct restrictions imposed. 
they should be forced to use open file formats in all their 
products. they should be forced to use open networking protocols in 
all their products. And they should be forced to open up their 
development APIs to EVERYONE.
    Most of all, Microsoft should not be allowed to weasel their way 
out of this again.
    thanks,
    Jake Lauritzen



MTC-00017698

From: John Stillwagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe to settlement with Microsoft is wrong and should be 
reevaluated.
    John Stillwagen
    [email protected]
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00017699

From: Tom Price
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26449]]

Date: 1/23/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is NOT in the public 
interest. Rather, it seems to be a blatant attempt to create an even 
larger Microsoft monopoly.
    Several suggestions:
    1. While I support Gate's ``freedom to innovate'', 
I've also seen a number of good companies constrained from doing 
just that because vital information like application program 
interfaces (APIs) was simply withheld by Microsoft.
    Microsoft should be required provide this information free, upon 
request, to anyone who wants it. And, there should be independent 
monitoring. Microsoft has demonstrated time and again that they 
cannot be trusted to do the right thing. If it can be demonstrated 
that they have developed separately-sold applications that utilize 
these so-called secret APIs, there should be substantial penalties, 
including release of the Windows source code.
    To do anything less, is to hand them a government-endorsed 
monopoly on whatever software they choose to produce (now or in the 
future).
    2. Make it possible to buy a computer without an operating 
system and without compensating Microsoft. Why should Microsoft 
profit if I plan to install Linux or freeBSD?
    3. The services portion of the business (MSN, Microsoft 
consulting, Hotmail and future ``dot Net'' services) 
should be spun off. Leaving them as part of Microsoft as we know it 
is particularly dangerous to the consumer. Consumer purchase of 
these services (and exclusion of others) might be dictated by future 
releases of the OS.
    4. Microsoft should be required to provide unbundled releases of 
their OS.
    5. More technical people and fewer lawyers need to be involved 
in the wording of this document. It is not sufficiently broad to 
cover future advances in the technology.
    6. ALL future acquisitions, expansions of business, price 
increases, and changes to licensing terms should be reviewed by DOJ 
to determine whether they are in the public interest.
    I hope that SOMETHING can be done and that this agreement as it 
current stands will NOT be ratified.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Thomas A. Price
    PO Box 18941
    Raleigh, NC 27619-8941



MTC-00017700

From: Ted Mielczarek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It does not offer 
punishment for past transgressions by Microsoft, nor does it 
adequately offer protection against future abuses. I think more 
action is needed in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Mielczarek
    530 Montclair Ave
    Bethlehem PA 18015



MTC-00017701

From: G.S. Lyons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been found guilty. Microsoft is a monopoly. 
Microsoft continues to flirt with monopoly in it's buisiness 
practices, even while under increased scrutiny resulting from the 
antitrust findings. I strongly urge the DOJ to pursue a penalty that 
will truly prevent Microsoft from continuing to unfairly dominate 
the American consumer PC marketplace.
    Gregory S. Lyons



MTC-00017702

From: Jonathan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a BAD idea.
    Jonathan Bernard
    Network Administrator
    www.microlnk.com
    866-795-6565



MTC-00017703

From: Kadam, Darshan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whomsoever it Concerns: I'm a citizen of the United States 
``by choice'' and not by birth. While there are plenty of 
reasons I can cite for making this choice, one thing that really 
seems unfair to me is the way the entire Microsoft Antitrust trial 
has played out. I hope the proposed settlement is amended for 
stricter restrictions on Microsoft since I believe that Microsoft 
will take full advantage of the current ``slap on the 
wrist'' settlement and gobble up any competition.
    And yes, I'm sending this email using MS Outlook, however, if I 
had a ``choice'' I would use a more secure mail 
application.
    Thank You.
    Priyadarshan Kadam
    Atlanta, GA 30340



MTC-00017704

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am a computer citizen and I have been following the Microsoft 
saga from the very beginning.
    The fact that the above company is utilizing tactics that not 
only have created a monopoly in the computing industry, is also 
strive with all its resources to create a ``Microsoft 
addiction'' just like the tobacco industry did and any other 
illegal substance peddlers do. I think this is wrong and creates an 
atmosphere of futile hope for progress.
    Our industry, society and country can and must progress, and the 
progress is brought by competition and creativity, not by deceiving 
tactics , false promises or hidden agendas.
    Another slap on the hand is not enough; you must set an example. 
I sincerely hope that you would not allow Microsoft's tactics to 
continue, and also you will set an example for future generations to 
applaud.
    Regards,
    Val Popa



MTC-00017705

From: John Justice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I'm writing a quick note with some thoughts on the 
proposed settlement in the Microsoft case.
    As a developer, I write applications every day. But I (and 
thousands of others) would never dare to write programs that compete 
directly with Microsoft, as there's no way to win that battle. The 
problem is that any application written by Microsoft will inevitably 
work better on Windows, because the Microsoft application can use 
parts of the Windows APIs (application programming interfaces) that 
no one but Microsoft knows about. Without making these APIs 
completely public (and the file formats of the Microsoft Office 
applications public as well), the playing field will never be level 
between Microsoft and independent software developers (me). Thank 
you for your time. Please don't allow this weak proposed settlement 
to go through.
    ``The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate 
your phone 90 degrees and try again.''
    John Justice
    [email protected]



MTC-00017706

From: Drew Bertola
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea. It is far too 
lenient and simply plays into Microsoft's hands.
    Andrew C. Bertola
    Sunnyvale, California



MTC-00017707

From: Brian Whitecotton
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea!!!
    Brian R. Whitecotton
    Research Scientist
    Quantum Magnetics, Inc.
    7740 Kenamar Court
    San Diego, CA 92121-2425
    (858) 566-9200 ext. 423
    [email protected]



MTC-00017708

From: Yehuda E. Ben-Shamai
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The current terms of settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft 
are not satisfactory. This long standing illegal monopoly is being 
given a free pass on their criminal behaviour. This is not 
acceptable. You, the Justice Department, should more vigorously 
pursue

[[Page 26450]]

a far more wide ranging and punitive judgement against Microsoft.
    Ali Al-Beheshti



MTC-00017709

From: Sam Byrne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am contributing this comment to be considered in the case of 
US vs. Microsoft. As I am intimately involved in the day to day 
activities of maintaining a corporate network, I feel qualified to 
comment on the injustice that is being suggested in the Proposed 
Final Judgement. My daily tasks are multiplied in levels of 
difficulty simply because our organization attempts to use competing 
open source products. The number of obstacles Microsoft has placed 
in the way of interoperability demand that they be restricted from 
this type of activity in the future.
    Microsoft should be prevented from imposing anti-competitive 
measures in their licensing agreements. I would refer to Kegel's 
statements as documented at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#abe for further information regarding this 
particular issue.
    As it is put forth, the PFJ is inadequate and will prove useless 
in preventing anti-competitive measures by Microsoft; measures that 
do not just hurt corporations trying to compete with Microsoft, but 
also the consumers like myself.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sam Byrne
    Network Administrator-H.I.S. Financial Services 
Corporation.
    102 S. Tejon, Ste. 920, Colorado Springs, CO 80903
    Phone: 719-633-7005x217 Fax: 
719-633-7006



MTC-00017710

From: Frederick Geers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please help ensure that Microsoft does not become the only 
operating system or software tools provider.



MTC-00017711

From: Wade Franklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I 
believe that they should be punished much more strongly. I am a 
software developer and I have observed their predatory tactics for 
over 15 years.
    Wade Franklin



MTC-00017712

From: Newbury
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What were you thinking?
    The proposed settlement fails in so many respects it is 
incredible. The agreement gives all the power to MS to decide what 
the agreement means.
    In particular, the agreement has no sanctions to stop Microsoft 
from requiring that OEM customers must not offer other Operating 
Systems, or to stop Microsoft from being able to charge OEM 
customers for every unit, whether or not an OS is requested.
    As a result of Microsoft's monopolistic conduct, it is now 
impossible to buy, for example, a Toshiba laptop, which does not 
have, and never had, an operating system on it. Toshiba will not 
remove the wincrap, and will not rebate the price, because to do so 
would be in breach of its contracts with Microsoft. So *everyone* 
who wants Toshiba hardware, *must* pay the Microsoft tax.
    The settlement agreement is sadly broken, and should not be 
ratified.
    R. G. Newbury



MTC-00017713

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea. Barely a slap on the wrist for 
Microsoft. They should be held accountable for their abusive 
buisness pratices.
    Thank You,
    Robert Martin
    4024 W Park Pl
    Oklahoma City, OK
    73107



MTC-00017714

From: Scott Yewell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust 
case will do little to change the monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft. Any settlement which does not severely restrict Microsoft 
from building its products in the Operating Systems, Internet, and 
Applications market will do little to create a fair open computer 
software arena in which competitors are allowed to compete.
    Windows XP has been used as an advertising platform for 
Microsoft products and services, and to lock out competing products. 
Microsoft's unfair practices (oft-referred to as strong-arm) leave 
precious little room for competitors in this environment.
    You needn't look any further than to the open-source community 
for clues as to the state of the software industry. Thousands of 
developers donating their time and valuable skills in order to 
compete against the giant Microsoft. Why would thousands of computer 
programmers take time out of their busy lives to do for free what 
they easily could be paid for elsewhere? Because they want to see 
the project (linux) succeed in the face of MS.
    Because they want an alternative to Windows. Because they aren't 
as naive as the typical home user who has no alternative to 
Microsoft, and they are not satisfied to use a product that forces 
them (or tries to force them) to use software inferior to that which 
they could write or have written...
    To continue to let Microsoft bully their way around the software 
industry is to let that industry die a slow stagnant death. 
Competition and alternative is the only way to keep this huge part 
of the American economy thrive. Without a fair settlement of the MS 
case, this may not be possible. With MS allowed to compete unfairly 
against its rivals in Application and Internet markets by using its 
OS, is to allow them to squash any rival they wish. Please do not 
let this continue to happen.
    Thank you,
    Scott Yewell
    Software Engineer
    Newfound Communications
    Lawrence, MA 01840
    (978) 794-3878



MTC-00017715

From: Wagner Ralph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I write to you today to express that I am against the current 
Microsoft Settlement. It seems to me that this 
``settlement'' is not in the best insterests of the US 
Consumer, but rather is in the best interests of Microsoft-the 
convicted monopolist. Any attempts to justify this settlement in the 
interests of the economy are also a Red Herring. Microsoft has 
already affected the economy with it's monopoly by destroying 
innovative companies and promoting self-serving proprietary 
standards. Given this settlement, Microsoft would persue it's utopia 
of a monthly Microsoft bill-akin to your monthly telelphone or 
electric bill. There are several problems with the settlement as it 
currently exists, some of the points that I find particularly 
troublesome are:
    1. The fact that no remedy is offered for the illegally obtained 
majority share in the internet browser market. They should not be 
permitted to keep the gains they have made by illegally exploiting 
their monopoly.
    2. Any settlement that *had* sufficient remedies should be 
longer than 5-7 years, especially in the case of a repeat-
offender such as Microsoft. The minimum term should be at least 10 
years, with a maximum of 20. Microsoft has snickered at the US DOJ 
before as it walked away after a ``wrist-slap'' remedy 
(1995). Don't let it do so again.
    3. The continued ability of Microsoft to ``bundle'' 
whatever it wants with the ``operating system'. This is exactly 
how Microsoft gained market share in the browser market. This 
practice must be stopped, and Microsoft will not do so on it's own.
    In closing, I would refer you to a (very short) article that 
addresses (most) of these concerns quite well-http://
linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20
-OP-MS
    Thank you for your time.
    Ralph Wagner
    8251 Greensboro Drive #413
    McLean, Va 22102
    703.902.5335 (O)
    703.902.3457 (F)



MTC-00017716

From: Matthew Jenove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26451]]

    Summary: The proposed judgment falls short of intended goals.
    To whom it may concern:
    I am concerned that the proposed Final Judgment against 
Microsoft fails to end its anticompetitive practices for a number of 
reasons:
    * Narrow Definitions of Terms
    The terms ``API'', ``Microsoft Middleware 
(Product)'', and ``Windows Operating System'' are 
defined quit explicitly; so explicitly that it leave numerous 
loopholes through which Microsoft can continue many of its current 
practices.
    * Proprietary File Formats
    One of the ways Microsoft perpetuates the dominance of its 
Office suite is by not disclosing the way that files (word 
processing documents, spread sheets) are formatted. As a 
consequence, if you wish to share the documents that you have 
created, those computer users must have also purchased MS Office. 
And again, when Microsoft releases new versions of Office and 
changes the file format, one is forced in to buying the latest 
Office version in order to continue to read files created by others.
    * Anti-Competitive Enterprise Licensing
    Enterprise (i.e. schools, businesses, governments) license 
agreements often charge a fee for each desktop or portable computer 
which could run a Microsoft operating system, regardless of whether 
any Microsoft software is actually installed on the affected 
computer. This removes any financial incentive to use alternative 
operating systems or software.
    These are but a few of the things that appear to not be 
sufficiently addressed in the proposed Final Judgement. I urge the 
Department of Justice to review the proposed judgement and not let 
Microsoft continue its anticompetitive practices.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Jenove
    Software Engineer



MTC-00017717

From: Josh Fishman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam and/or Sir,
    I'd like to register my distaste for the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. The proposed settlement would allow Microsoft to 
continue its worst practices unabated, while pretending to have paid 
for its crimes.
    Here is a partial list of the practices which must be stopped by 
any real settlement or judgement:
    1) Software Bundling AND Exclusion: by selectively disallowing 
and mandating what software is provided with a new computer, 
Microsoft controls which 3rd party software will be allowed to 
flourish.
    2) Boot Loader Exclusion: by forcing Windows to boot before 
loading any other software, Microsoft prevents vendors from offering 
systems loaded with more than one operating system. Consumers who 
would like Windows and Linux or BeOS or OS/2 (or any other operating 
system) are forced to do the second installation themselves.
    3) Punitive Pricing: by punishing vendors who do not load 
Windows on every system, Microsoft creates an artificial barrier to 
entry for competing operating systems.
    4) Gag Clauses: by disallowing discussion among those who own or 
otherwise know the performance characteristics of their software, 
Microsoft guarentees that the only voice heard will be that of their 
advertising dollar-not the voice of reason or experience.
    5) Misleading Advertisments: by advertising features and / or 
products which do not exist, Microsoft sows fear about the viability 
of real products which would compete.
    There are some obvious solutions to these problems:
    1) Disallow Microsoft from writing contracts which prohibit OR 
mandate any particular software.
    2) Disallow Microsoft from writing contracts which prohibit OR 
mandate any particular boot sequence.
    3) Publish all Microsoft software prices. This will make the 
DoJ's job significantly easier, as all vendor pricing will be 
instantly available for inspection.
    4) Disallow Microsoft from writing contracts with gag clauses. 
Declare all such clauses null and void, and allow customers to 
discuss their expereiences with and benchmarks of Microsoft 
software.
    5) Prohibit advertisments for products and / or features which 
do not exist. Enforcement would be problematic; perhaps offer a 
bounty to citizens, which Microsoft would pay directly, for spotting 
such ads? These remedies would not completely fix Microsoft. For 
example, the company would still be able to use its patents to 
intimidate competing vendors and open source projects. However, any 
remedy which does not address these issues is insufficient and 
lacking, and not worthy of this nation's Justice Department.
    Thank you,
    Joshua Fishman
    144 West 10th St.
    New York, NY 10014
    [email protected]



MTC-00017718

From: Dwight N Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this settlement does not remedy the key issues. 
Microsoft continues to squash competors by bundling for free 
programs that do the same as commercially available software. It's 
hard to compete with free. Please do not let Microsoft stifle 
imagination and innovation.



MTC-00017719

From: Edward (q)Niko(q) Nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. As a computer professional, in the field for 
over 16 years, I have had the unique opportunity to watch the 
industry mature from novelty and hobby machines, to become a 
ubiquitous part of business. Much of our countries growth in the 
last decade is solidly attributable to computers. Sadly, I have also 
seen a trend of anti-competitive practices by a few corporations. I 
have been affected first hand by Microsoft's criminal business 
practices. When the anti-trust suit against Microsoft was proven, I 
believed that Microsoft would forced by law to end their unfair 
practices. However, the settlement reached by the government does 
little to address Microsoft's near monopoly powers. Specifically I 
find issue with the following specific points of the settlement.
    On the issue of middleware replacement. The definition of 
``middleware'' is so narrow, that it is not applicable to 
future version of Microsoft's operating systems. On the issue of 
restricting anti-competitive practices. Microsoft has continued to 
use restrictive licensing to prevent outside developers, 
specifically Open Source developers, from either creating software 
for Windows, or allowing for Windows software to run on another 
operating system. This is the key to Microsoft's ability to bend the 
market to it's whim. And the settlement proposed does nothing at all 
to address these issues. Microsoft continues its practice of harming 
competitors. Microsoft has branched into Personal Video Recorders, 
Cell Phone Operating Systems, Home Automation, Home Entertainment 
Consoles, Cell Phone Applications, Embedded Operating Systems and 
many other areas. Each of these niches is already developed, and 
competing in a free market. There are no new restrictions on 
Microsoft's ability to conduct business, and I believe that 
Microsoft will eventually dominate and control these and many other 
emerging markets, based on their past behavior.
    I urge the government to take a fresh look at Microsoft, and 
consider carefully the terms of this settlement. I believe after due 
consideration and review, that the terms of the proposed settlement 
will be found to be unsound.



MTC-00017720

From: Whitney, Dennis
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello to all,
    The current Microsoft ``settlement'' is a very bad 
idea.
    Why should we give MS another method of strangling competition 
as a way to settle a case?
    If we are really serious about ending the anti competitive 
practices of MS, this is not the way to do it.
    Thank you.
    Dennis Whitney
    ``Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a 
little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety''
    Benjamin Franklin



MTC-00017721

From: Mike Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ, Of course you are seeing a large number of messages 
being sent in today due to a number of forums being told the 
deadline for comments is running out. Please do not let that detract 
from what I am saying.

[[Page 26452]]

    Unfortunately, the proposed remedy that has been submitted 
regarding the monopoly practices of the Microsoft Corporation does 
not truly address the problem, but only some of the symptoms. 
Historically, Microsoft Corporation has taken the stance of 
``bundling'' or ``folding into the operating 
system'' products that perform the exact same task as 
competitor products taking advantage of the inertia of the common 
user-what I like to call ``My Mom Factor''. My mom 
is frugal and doesn't understand computers very well. Going out and 
purchasing software that did not come with her machine is something 
she will do if advised by the computer professional in the family 
(me) that it is the only way, but downloading software from the 
internet is beyond her comfort level.
    What this does is limit her to the software that generally comes 
bundled with a typical home PC (i.e. Microsoft solutions) and she 
won't venture beyond that range. For products to have any chance of 
competing within the My Mom Factor, they have to either ship with 
the PC or be on the shelf at the local software store and have no 
alternative sitting on the computer.
    The proposed settlement should not allow the 
``bundling'' of Microsoft Office or any other Microsoft 
products that do not specifically apply to the OS-web browsers 
and mail clients are not OS specific, even though there are hooks at 
that level to allow the other Microsoft products to interact. I 
would suggest looking back a few versions of Windows to Windows 3.1 
to find what is specific to the Windows operating system.
    Opening up all of the OS APIs so that developers can compete on 
the same level would also be a good move and it needs to take into 
account that Microsoft already has a head start in this. A real 
settlement should be ``leveling the playing field'' so 
that everyone is more or less equal for a while. The best example 
showing the current situation that I can think of is Ford builds an 
engine and makes it available for GM and Chrysler to use in their 
vehicles as well. All the vehicles perform okay and get 25 mpg.
    Then Ford starts selling a new vehicle using the same engine 
that gets 40 mpg and go from 0-60 in 2.3 seconds. An 
independent investigation finds that all the vehicles weigh the 
same, are built from the same materials, etc. but the Ford vehicles 
have a special setting on the engine that lets the Ford transmission 
transfer power from the engine to the wheels much more efficiently. 
Would it be a good solution to tell Ford to pay a fine and tell 
about the wiring of how the engine indicates that it can run better, 
or should there be something more substantial?
    I do ask that the DOJ please take a second look at the proposed 
settlement and ask the questions ``How does this make it 
level?'' and ``How does it prevent the My Mom 
factor?'' Thank you in advance for taking that second look.
    Cordially,
    Michael A. Bryant II
    [email protected]
    Contact Information:
    Michael A. Bryant II
    1874 Elkwood Drive C
    oncord, California 94519
    (925) 521-1967



MTC-00017722

From: Richard W. Howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am very unhappy with the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
This company has been found to break the law in a major way, and yet 
it is proposed that it will escape with very little real penalty. We 
need diversity and competition to ensure a thriving and innovative 
computer market. Microsoft has clearly shown that it prefers to 
stifle innovation and competition.
    Sincerely,
    Richard
    Dr Richard W. Howe
    Research Scientist
    Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy
    Energy & Geoscience Institute
    The University of Utah
    423 Wakara Way, Suite 300
    Salt Lake City UT 84108
    USA
    801-585 3539 Direct
    801-581 5126 Reception
    801-585 3540 Fax
    http://www.egi.utah.edu/



MTC-00017723

From: Michael Boer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is deeply disturbing to me. I am opposed 
to the proposed settlement.
    I believe that Microsoft should be ordered to provide versions 
off all Office applications that will run on the Linux platform as 
well as the Windows and Macintosh platforms. This would help 
equalize the OS market and would benefit the entire industry.
    Sincerely,
    [X] Michael Boer
    9504 Ravenna Ave NE #103
    Seattle, WA 98115
    [X] Michael Boer -> IM:MBoerSEA



MTC-00017724

From: Brian Stults
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    I am writing pursuan to the Tunney Act public comment period to 
express my dissatisfaction with the Microsoft antitrust settlement. 
The proposed settlement will not prevent Microsoft from maintaining 
its monopoly in the computer industry. The findings of fact clearly 
described a pattern of corporate behavior that evidenced little 
respect for antitrust law or public sentiment. Though the proposed 
remedies themselves may be adequate, the enforcement measures will 
not provide enough incentive for Microsoft to fundamentally alter 
its behavior.
    History demonstrates that Microsoft will not alter its behavior 
unless it is clearly in its competitive interests to do so. The 
proposed remedies attempt to force Microsoft to change its behavior 
in order to reduce its power in the market place. This will not 
succeed.
    The only measures that can be effective are those that 
immediately change the competitive landscape, and then free 
Microsoft to struggle for power in this new, more level playing 
field. I agree with the court that a structual remedy is cumbersome 
and not likely to be effective. A technilogical remedy, with 
objective, quantifiable measures, is the only remedy that can be 
both effective and in the public's interest.
    The competitive advantages of an operating system monopoly are 
twofold. First, Microsoft negotiates from a very powerful position 
with OEMs and ISPs. Second, their application software can be 
developed with special knowledge of the operating system and 
(optionally) devivered with the operating system to gain better 
market penetration. Any remedy must address both of these 
monopolistic advantages.
    While I do not claim to be able to construct a better remedy 
myself, I think it is clear that any remedy must involve forcing 
Microsoft to open all of its APIs and file formats. Any time two 
pieces of MS software communicate out-of-process, the protocol for 
their communication must be public. Enforcement could come in the 
form of a court-appointed authority that had the right to demand to 
see the source code of any MS-published software and compare the 
documented APIs to the source code. If they were not the same or if 
the source code is not delivered within a few days, MS should be 
fined 1/356th of it's profit (this can be calculated after the fact 
at the end of each quarter) per-day until it satisfies the 
requirements. This would ensure that the applications of Microsoft's 
competitors have the same opportunity to succeed on the Windows 
platform as those of Microsoft itself. Microsoft may maintain its 
operating systems monopoly, but it will not be able to use to 
establish new monopolies in other market segments.
    Thank you very much for reading and considering my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Stults Brian J. Stults
    Department of Sociology
    3219 Turlington
    PO Box 117330
    Gainesville, Florida 32611-7330
    phone: (352) 392-0265 x286
    fax: (352) 392-6568
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00017725

From: maladon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement. It is bad public policy and 
only serves Microsoft's interests.
    As written, there are many ways in which Microsoft can repackage 
their software to avoid meeting the definitions in the settlment.
    By not including all of Microsoft's current operating systems 
the settlment allows Microsoft to move consumers from a covered OS 
to a new OS and bypass the settlment entirely.
    Phil True

[[Page 26453]]

    M.S. System Architect
    Eagan, MN



MTC-00017726

From: Chris Storer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Storer -bs Infiniti Systems 
Group, Inc.
    IT Consultant -bs A Weatherhead 100 
Company
    [email protected] -bs 
An Inc 500 Company
    440-668-6225 440-546-9443 FAX 
-bs www.infinitisystems.com



MTC-00017727

From: Hayslette, Steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not let Microsoft get away with what they have done to the IT 
community.
    They should not allowed to sell apps and the OS in the same 
company period. They should be broken up into two (or more) separate 
*competing* companies.
    Here's why: As long as Microsoft has control of the OS they can 
still strong-arm and push obtrusive proprietary technologies to 
corporate and home users leaving companies and individuals at the 
mercy of Microsoft and forced to pay exorbitant fees.
    Stephen C. Hayslette



MTC-00017728

From: Malaska, Ted
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Settlement is bad.
    A. it does nothing to correct the problem of Microsoft being to 
powerful.
    B. It does not help competition, and competition bring out the 
best in every thing.
    C. the settlement involves Microsoft give software to school for 
free. This helps Microsoft more then it hurt them. Think the fixed 
cost in developing a Microsoft product is already spent. The 
variable cost the Microsoft is being made to make for this 
settlement it less then 5 cent a CD. Plus remember be giving there 
software to school they are now getting free access to kids which 
will grow up and buy the software they used in school.
    The settlement is bad because it does not hurt Microsoft at all 
but in the long run helps them.



MTC-00017729

From: Brendan Andersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement for the reasons listed here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html.
    Brendan Andersen



MTC-00017730

From: Bernadine M Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    While I do believe in free competition, I don't believe 
Microsoft does. It is my belief that they did in fact violate anti-
trust laws and as a result we are all paying more money for inferior 
software. It is very bad for the consumer when there is no 
alternative out there. We end up paying a lot of money for software 
that has no decent security, that crashes computers many times/day 
which effects productivity, and the cost of which is getting higher 
and higher especially with the new licensing arrangements.
    There is no incentive for Microsoft to provide anything better. 
Who do they have to be better than? Noone. Who suffers? The American 
citizen. Allowing Microsoft to bail out by providing more 
proprietary software to our schools only increases the monopoly. Why 
don't they provide books for libraries, or musical instruments or 
computers that run another OS. Their fine doesn't even hurt and just 
increases their monopoly.
    This isn't free enterprise.
    Bernadine M. Brown



MTC-00017731

From: Chris Parker
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the Microsoft settlement. I don't feel that it 
provides enough remedy, and tells Microsoft to do pretty much what 
they are doing already.
    What good is that? It needs to be more drastic.



MTC-00017732

From: Randy Strauss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I found out this morning you are seeking public comment. Please 
excuse me if I tell you things you already know. I am a programmer, 
with an masters in CS Stanford from the early 1980's. I have worked 
on many platforms and now have a Mac and a dual boot Windows/Linux 
machine. I worked at Frame Technology and stayed with FrameMaker 
when Adobe bought them, working on all 3 platforms though mostly on 
the Unix product, mostly on the UI.
    To me, Microsoft is best known for lowering software standards. 
They didn't invent the term ``vaporware'' or 
``FUD'' (fear, uncertainty and doubt), but they were the 
first ones to make a constant profit from selling vaporware and beta 
software and from using FUD to consistently stop others from 
penetrating a market. Companies constantly wait for MS to move in a 
market because they know that MS will come up with incompatible 
technology and everyone else will have to change. Customers would 
rather not change. No other company has the power to stop progress 
and move standards like MS.
    In case you don't know FrameMaker, it is the leading 
professional long/technical document software. People use it to 
write manuals from 50-100 pages to thousands of pages. It is 
also used to automate the publishing of documents and forms. Though 
I've left Adobe, I probably shouldn't say how big the market 
is-but FM has always made well under $100M/year. $100M/year 
was seen as the whole market size and we had a decent piece of it. 
Luckily, it was always too small to attract MS attention.
    Note that lots of people use Word to write manuals, because it's 
ubiquitous-essentially free since it either comes with most 
machines or is a std corp package. Yet people complain that Word is 
abysmal for these documents-often crashing. We successfully 
lured writers to use FM, but then these writers had huge problems 
getting content into FM. We wrote filters and partnered with filter 
writers, but MS is the lone DTP (desktop publisher) vendor that 
doesn't believe in having a decent exchange format.
    Every company thinks it's important to exchange documents except 
MS. They kept their format not only secret, but constantly changing. 
At Frame, we couldn't afford bugs. Our number one goal was never, 
ever to lose user data. Crashing was merely horrible.
    When MS came along and made crashing an everyday activity, 
making ``Blue Screen of Death'' a commonly heard phrase, 
we were astounded. Over the years they have consistently lowered 
software standards. Why could they afford to make shoddy software 
when no one else could?
    One great example of this is in computer security. In the 1980s, 
all the unix companies worked on security. Leaving holes in a system 
wasn't an option. MS doesn't have to do that. Companies lose 
billions of dollars a year to viruses but still have to use MS 
products. Any other company would fill the holes. Sun spent huge 
resources to assure that Java applets woudln't damage a 
computer-so you don't hear of Java viruses. MS doesn't care. 
It's cheaper these days to fool customers, to make buggy software 
that has security problems. And MS can get away with it because 
they've created a culture

[[Page 26454]]

where it's expected. Companies expect to pay a tax for virus-
prevention software. Even the ones that do realize it's a cost of 
Windows, they can't leave Windows. (MS is the only company I know of 
that advertises that their software releases are ``less buggy 
than the last one''. It's absolutely astonishing.)
    Adobe spends lots and lots of effort making its partners happy, 
people who create add-on software. Several times they avoided very 
good acquisitions because it would have meant competing against 
partners. I know Sun is also very, very careful in this area. Adobe 
is the 3rd largest commercial software company. Sun is huge. Yet 
Microsoft thinks nothing of putting their partners out of business. 
They certainly encourage help, but where others worry about earning 
a reputation of being hostile to partners, MS does not. Why can they 
afford to be differeng?
    I was so happy when Java came along. Soon I would finally be 
able to write cross-platform software-same file formats, same 
UI software. I have two great ideas for developing innovative, 
useful software. But it means learning MS's very peculiar UI 
development environment. If MS hadn't stopped Java, I could write it 
once, simply. I did write an interesting game that my kid 
loves-but there's no point trying to sell it. Any consumer 
first has to download Java-and that's too difficult. Once 
again, MS has stopped innovation and made it harder to compete. Any 
decent OS manufacturer would have been happy to incorporate Java. 
Any OS maker who cared about innovation or quality products or 
making software better or better software, that is.
    FrameMaker has an API so that one can write a program to control 
FM. Adobe had a project a few years ago to put an easy-to-use UI 
atop FM to make a SOHO (small-office/home-office) DTP product. The 
FM back-engine was superior to anything in the market. The front-end 
(UI) was novel and made it easy to create great documents. The only 
other big player in the $250M SOHO publish market is MS, with MS 
Publisher. Our product was nearing alpha when MS announced a new 
version. Our product would still be way ahead, but Adobe didn't want 
to get in a marketing war with MS-they were much richer and we 
didn't want to compete with that bottom line.
    The rumors I heard were that Adobe didn't want to be seen as a 
company that MS should squash. If MS wanted to, they could start 
buying, marketing and launching graphics products to compete against 
Adobe's core business. Adobe turned tail and halted the project. 
Customers suffered.
    Early in the days of the lawsuits, I heard talk about MS being 
innovative. Yet only a tiny fraction of ``their 
innovations'' are really theirs. They buy innovation, kill most 
of it, and gut the rest. If these companies were allowed to compete 
and grow, we'd have much better software solutions.
    I don't see how any settlement with Microsoft will change their 
practices. One thing I learned through 19 years in corporate 
environments is that a company's culture reflects management's 
personality. Consciously and unconsciously, Microsoft employees know 
how their company works.
    Their attitudes are not going to change unless huge changes 
happen at the company. I've heard Gates talk over the years. He has 
grandiose ideas about bringing the world into the future, 
integrating with TV and appliances. He doesn't talk about doing it 
with others, just about what he and MS will do. MS does not have a 
culture of working with others, certainly not one of fair 
competition.
    I've talked to people who worked at MS and at other tech 
companies. At other companies, people, even at the bottom of the 
ladder, talk about being part of the team, part of the vision. Not 
at MS. There only the programmers are part of the team. At other 
companies QA is central, testing is part of the foundation of 
software production. MS thinks nothing of alienating its QA people. 
Where other companies want their QA people to be full-time and 
really know the product, MS insisted (maybe still does?) that QA 
people be contractors and go elsewhere after a 2-year maximum.
    Though it would help explain their shoddy products, it's still 
astounding.
    I have been a MS stock owner at times. I'm not now. If the 
company would be broken up, I'd be interested again. I'd be 
interested in a company that wants to make a good OS. I'd be 
interested in a company that wants to make good products. MS just 
isn't that company.
    MS seems to have gotten their early monopoly through fair 
competition and business practices. But then they abused it to 
develop other monopolies and lower the software standards for 
everyone. Requiring computer makers to bundle their softare, 
breaking their Java license and giving their browser away free to 
beat Netscape were just the most visible instances. My wife worked 
at 3Com for years and the stories were everywhere. MS is a bully and 
could get away with it not because they were big, but because they 
had a monopoly and if you did not put up with their bullying, you 
didn't play. She had tons of stories about planned conferences where 
MS would change the schedule at the last minute to shut out 3com or 
agree on a press release and then release something else. MS doesn't 
care about decent business practices because they can use their 
monopoly to cow almost all companies.
    And the DOJ will only hear cases coming to court from people 
that tried to fight back, not the thousands of cases where people 
sold out, buckled under or just recognized the playing field and 
played along.
    I remember when the anti-trust suits against IBM changed their 
business practices. It was wonderful for the industry and turned 
them into a much better company for all of us. This needs to be done 
with Microsoft. Bush sold us all out with the federal settlement.
    I have a dual boot machine with Windows and Linux. The modem, a 
new, high-end modem, doesn't work for me-it almost works and 
others have had it work, but theres no tech support for Linux use 
because the vendor need only care about Windows. If it was a law-
abiding monopoly, I wouldn't complain. It's not. I don't get cable 
TV because it's too expensive. I'd be willing to pay $100/year for a 
few good channels, but $600/yr is much too much. Cable TV is a 
monopoly I resist, even though I have 2 pretty main-stream kids. At 
the moment I would not own Windows unless I had to. I looked for a 
Linux machine that would just work, but couldn't find one. Every 
other PC had Windows pre-installed. Because of MS's monopoly, and 
the ruthless, illegal ways they've kept and expanded it, there're 
very yew choices on the market. If I can't make it work in another 
month or so, I'll consider spending a bunch more money and get a Mac 
with OSX.
    MS has made choice very, very expensive.
    Thanks for the ear.
    Your decision is our best hope at the moment.
    Take care,
    Randy Strauss
    1815 Walnut Dr
    Mountain View, CA 94040
    650-381-6078 (work, at Nominum)
    650-279-6849 (cell)



MTC-00017733

From: James R. Leu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlment is a bad idea, it does not address the real 
problem which is that the Microsoft corporation has a monopolist 
hold on the desktop software industry. Something needs to be done 
about there past actions to prevent them from squashing the 
innovations of the future.
    Mr. James R. Leu
    Allison Park, PA 15101



MTC-00017734

From: Jim Pullaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET.
    The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create

[[Page 26455]]

compatible middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs 
to demonstrate that their middleware is compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.



MTC-00017735

From: Ray Berry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern-
    I have been reading about the proposed Microsoft settlement, and 
I am against it in its current form. I do not see that it punishes 
Microsoft adequately for past wrong-doings, and simply formalizes 
the status-quo. I would appreciate it if you would consider this a 
vote against the current settlement, and also a vote to seek a 
settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Thank you,
    Ray Berry
    Evergreen, CO 80439



MTC-00017736

From: Holly Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. 
It falls short of addressing key issues that Microsoft relies upon 
in its unfair business practices, so these will continue into the 
future, making the whole lawsuit pointless. The settlement must cut 
to the root of the problem, and not let Microsoft slither away with 
a slap on the wrists and no weaker for the ordeal.
    Sincerely,
    Holly S. Robinson



MTC-00017737

From: Roger mach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After following the progress of the Microsoft anti-trust trial 
with great interest and hope, I have been very disapointed to see 
the proposed settlement, which does little or nothing to punish 
Microsoft for their illegal actions and may instead actually serve 
to further increase their market share. In short, I believe the 
settlement does not serve the public interest.
    In my opinion, any settlement should include massive fines 
against Microsoft, and possibly prison time for certain corporate 
officers. I would even suggest that revocation of Microsoft's 
corporate charter would be appropriate action against a company 
which behaves as they do, especially given their attitude of having 
done nothing wrong even after the findings of fact were upheld on 
appeal. It is clear to me that Microsoft will use any loophole to 
ignore restrictions on its business practices and therefore the 
penalty should not focus exclusively on such restrictions but also 
include substantial immediate actions such as those I mention above. 
It is my hope that with such penalties, the playing field will be 
leveled such that other competing technologies besides Microsoft's 
may gain market acceptance, and that in an environment of fair 
competition the best technology will win on its own merits.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Mach
    5445 NW Burning Tree Ct.
    Portland, OR 97229
    [email protected] -



MTC-00017738

From: John Schuch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to express my strong desire for the court to REJECT 
the settlement proposed by the DOJ and Microsoft.
    The proposed settlement will do nothing to prevent the 
monopolistic practices of which Microsoft has been found guilty.
    I urge the court to take a strong stand to enforce the law as it 
is written, and not to be swayed by the political forces currently 
in power at the DOJ.
    Sincerely,
    John Schuch



MTC-00017739

From: Matt Harrigan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Look, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a big corporate hotshot. I'm a 
concerned citizen and frequent user of computers. The bottom line in 
all this is that while Microsoft is a big company with alot of 
money, and they try very hard to make decent products for consumers, 
they fail. Alot. As a matter of fact the machine from which this is 
being sent is running Windows ME, and i'll be extremely surprised if 
I can complete this email message before something bad happens. On 
the other hand, the windows environment provides an interface which 
is popular because of it's ease of use, so alot of applications get 
written for it, both by Microsoft and by companies which will 
eventually be bought by Microsoft. Right now, sitting next to me is 
a linux machine which also runs an email program called pine. It's 
existed for about a decade with about 15 different revisions (a 
relatively small number for a piece of software), and i've been 
using it since then. It has never crashed.
    I have never lost an email from using pine. This happens for 
three reasons:
    1. Pine is written well.
    2. It sits on linux which is a stable platform.
    3. It's open source, so it works on everything.
    Microsoft does not make products which do not crash.
    Microsoft does not support open source standards.
    Microsoft does not care.
    Projects like WINE, StarOffice, etc . . . will suffer 
greatly if Microsoft is not actively encouraged by the US government 
to do the right thing. This is why we have a department of justice. 
You broke up the bell system, you privatized airlines, now please 
understand that the same thing needs to be done for the computer 
reliant public.
    Matthew G. Harrigan
    Retired .com guy who has nothing better to do than write the DOJ
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017740

From: Bill Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the current Microsoft settlement. The following 
points are examples of problems that I have:
    Microsoft's business practices have reduced the amount of choice 
available to consumers. Splitting the company into OS and 
Application divisions would have placed Microsoft's applications 
group on equal footing with other software companies but this idea 
was abandoned.
    Why has the definition of middleware been tied to specific 
version numbers of Microsoft products? Just because a new version of 
Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player comes out does not mean 
the product is no longer middleware.
    The same flaw as the point above exists for the definition of 
Operating System. Why are the successors to Windows XP not 
considered to be Operating Systems?
    Microsoft has used it's Windows monopoly to make Microsoft 
Office the standard productivity suite used in business. A word 
processor that can not open and save a Microsoft Word document has 
zero chance to gain market share today. The file formats for Office 
files should be released to the public to insure that competing 
products can open and save Office formatted documents.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to retaliate against OEM's that 
ship some computers without a Microsoft OS. If the customer wants a 
PC with Linux installed the manufacturer should not face higher 
Windows licensing prices. Microsoft should be forced to set one 
standard price for Windows licenses to ALL OEM's. Not just the top 
20 OEM's. This price should not relate to the number of licenses 
purchased. Rebates should not be available to OEM's that bundle 
other Microsoft products (e.g. Office) with their computer. 
Microsoft should not be allowed to sell it's compilers with a end 
user license agreement that prohibits software developers from using 
the compiler to create software that can be run on Windows 
compatible operating systems. Microsoft is not prohibited from 
intentionally creating incompatibilities with the products of 
competitors in new versions of it's OS or Middleware. These are some 
of the problems that I have with the current Microsoft Settlement.
    Bill Murray

[[Page 26456]]



MTC-00017741

From: Paul Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Microsoft needs to be broken up into several different 
companies. They have way too much power at this time and any 
``punishment'' they are given that allows them to stay as 
one company will be side stepped and they will continue to squash 
innovation. Bill Gates has proved he is no idiot, he will do 
whatever he can (and believe me, he can do it) to screw the world 
and get more money for Microsoft. The good of the world, the 
advancement of technology, putting computers in schools, making 
software more secure, easier to use, whatever: these are means to an 
end for Bill Gates. This man is more powerful than the president and 
that is not right. End this disgusting display of control this one 
man has over the world as we know it and break up Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Bradley
    Portland, Oregon



MTC-00017742

From: Andrew Shuvalov
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department Officer,
    When a criminal is robbing the bank, he is not offered any 
settlement option. Microsoft is robbing its customers, which are the 
majority of U.S.A. population, and many companies.
    I beleive that any settlement with Microsoft, whatever it is, is 
morally wrong.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Shuvalov
    Information Architects



MTC-00017743

From: Jim Hardwick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed final 
judgement (PFJ) against Microsoft.
    I believe the PFJ does little to address the Findings of Fact 
(FoF) made by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson and upheld on appeal. It 
does not define terms such as ``API'', 
``middleware'', and ``Windows Operating System'' 
in a manner consistent with the FoF or accepted industry and 
academic definitions, allowing Microsoft to circumvent much of the 
PFJ. It does not provide a method for enforcing any of the outlined 
remedies. Most seriously, the PFJ does not encourage competition nor 
reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    I have mentioned a few of my concerns with the PFJ. I agree with 
the analysis and essay by Dan Kegel (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). I have also submitted my name 
for addition to the ``Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft 
Settlement'' (available at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html) which will be sent along with a copy of Dan Kegel's 
essay to the Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    James Hardwick
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Embedded Software Engineer, GE Medical Systems
    Linux Programmer
    Windows Programmer



MTC-00017744

From: Chris Linstid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer of Microsoft products (forced and voluntarily) and 
as a citizen of the United States, I believe it is my duty to inform 
the Justice Department (as I'm sure many have before me) that the 
``Revised Proposed Final Judgement'' is too weak as to 
keep Microsoft from continuing its monopolistic business practices 
and does not thoroughly punish Microsoft for its many years of 
antitrust activities. Many of the provisions of the settlement are a 
good step in the right direction, but they are not forceful enough 
and some require more clarfication.
    My specific comments are as follows:
    1. In Section III, C, 4: An installation of a Windows operating 
system should at least ask before it re-writes the master boot 
record (MBR) on a hard drive. Currently, all Windows operating 
systems (after and including Windows 95) re-write the MBR upon 
installation, which disables most boot loaders for alternate 
operating systems, leaving only Windows bootable.
    2. Microsoft should allow use of a non-Microsoft browser to 
download Windows update patches. Currently with Windows 98 and 
above, Microsoft's Internet Explorer is required to update Windows, 
including fixing most security holes and basic functionality.
    3. After installation of a Windows operating system, activation 
of access to the Internet should not require deletion of the 
``MSN Icon'' in order to not have to go through signing up 
for MSN's ISP. (this was still the case with Windows 98 and Windows 
ME)
    Though I have not provided any suggestions on how to make this 
settlement more effective at stopping Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices, I am not a business person or a lawyer so my knowledge of 
antitrust law is somewhat limited. However, I am a software engineer 
and I understand that these ``flaws'' in Microsoft's 
software are not mistakes, they are purposely done to promote 
Microsoft software to the point of anticompetitive practices. I hope 
these comments will help bring Microsoft to justice.
    Chris Linstid
    System OS Group
    Mercury Computer Systems, Inc.
    phone: (978) 256-0052 x1345
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00017745

From: Craig Gulow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    What comments need to be made? Microsoft has been found to be 
guilty of breaking the law. This finding has in no way altered 
Microsoft's corporate behavior. Mircosoft has proven themselves to 
be untrustworthy through their actions and shenagins during the 
various trials. Could any so-called remedy that merely slapped a 
fine (even a billion dollar fine) cause Microsoft as a corporate 
entity to behave ethically? I doubt it.
    The best possible punishment I can think of is that they should 
be made to actually compete on level ground. Failing the breakup of 
Microsoft, I would hope that at least the closed systems (OS code, 
Office formats, etc) would be opened up and allows other companies 
to create software that could actually provide real competition.
    I would hope that a settlement against Microsoft would be just 
that; AGAINST MICROSOFT. If Microsoft is slapped with a velvet 
glove, then I see no reason why soemone who robs a bank should be 
punished. Or the corporate ``leaders'' of Enron.
    Craig Gulow



MTC-00017746

From: Phil Grapes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I just wanted to drop a line concerning the Microsoft 
settlement. I feel that most of the proposed settlements are VERY 
lenient and will only serve as a slap on the wrist. They defintely 
won't deter Microsoft's agressive and damaging business practices in 
the future. I don't even understand why a settlement is being 
offered to a company that is clearly an anti-competitive monopoly. I 
feel that the only real solution will be to break them up into at 
least 3 parts (OS, Apps/Games, and Hardware), but I somehow doubt 
that will happen. They must have severe restrictions on pricing, 
business practices, and expansion into new markets for this entire 
proceeding be any sort of protection from the Microsoft monopoly.
    In other words, settlement is definitely a bad idea!
    Thank you listening to my opinion,
    Zac Feuerborn
    Boise ID



MTC-00017747

From: Janet Chen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. Given the finding of facts in the Microsoft trial, I 
believe the proposed settlement is inadequate and will do little to 
change Microsoft's behavior in the future.
    For instance, although the proposed settlement forbids Microsoft 
from retaliating at OEMs that ship computers with multiple operating 
systems; however, it has no provision for OEMs who ship computers 
with a single non-Microsoft operating system. In addition, the 
proposed settlement does not

[[Page 26457]]

force Microsoft to release information about file formats, although 
Microsoft's use of undocumented file formats prevents competitors 
from entering the market.
    More troubling, the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to keep 
secret anything relating to security or copy protection. However, 
almost any API can be made to have some relation to security, so 
this renders many of the other provisions useless.
    I hope that the proposed settlement will be rejected or amended 
to ensure that Microsoft does not engage in anti-competitive 
behavior in the future.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jy-Ying Janet Chen



MTC-00017748

From: Andy Jaquysh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I feel the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is a poor 
one. Microsoft in the past has shown an aggressive desire to work 
around any and all structural remedies. Any person of intelligence 
and imagination can find many ways to work around the structures 
given in the proposed settlement and continue to pursue anti 
competitive behavior. This is why Microsoft is so agreeable to the 
proposed terms. Microsoft has been found guilty of engaging in 
monopolistic behavior. Any solution must not only prevent this 
behavior from occurring in the future, it must also not allow 
Microsoft to benefit from it's prior actions. Any less than this 
flies in the face of long term public interest.
    Sincerely,
    W. Andrew N. Jaquysh
    777 W. Middlefield Road
    Apt #132
    Mountain View, CA 94043



MTC-00017749

From: pj ponder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Thank you for allowing public comments on this important 
subject. I support stronger sanctions against Microsoft and I think 
the Settlement Agreement does not and will not do anything 
substantial to change the status quo. Absent strong and effective 
measures, the monopoly that Microsoft enjoys and exploits now will 
only worsen, depriving us all of technological benefits we could 
gain from a more competitive industry.
    I am particularly concerned that the process of settling this 
case is too heavily influenced by people who do not have a strong 
background in technology, and who perhaps have not spent much time 
thinking about the long range implications of letting the status quo 
go on. That sounds more negative than I had intended, my concern is 
that technological experts should play a significant and meaningful 
role in this case. It's not just legal issues that are being debated 
here, and I have been continually disappointed by how the states, 
the Justice Department, and the judges have failed to identify and 
analyze the technological issues at stake in this case.
    The outcome of this case can have a tremendous impact on how 
people use technology and how data is managed for ourselves and the 
future. The monopoly business practices of Microsoft have already 
had a significant and detrimental impact on the free exchange of 
information, the development of free or affordable information 
systems, and have placed vital information resources at risk. The 
settlement agreement should do something to change the way things 
operate now-in a fundamental way.



MTC-00017750

From: Anthony R. Cassandra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Monopolies are one of the market failures of capitalism. As 
such, it is one of the governments prime tasks to prevent them from 
forming and to dismantle them when they do materialize. The 
supression and elimination of monopolies is the governments duty, 
regardless of the immediate economic implications. This has to be 
done for the long term benefit of our country. Failure to do this, 
is the goverment failing to do its job. Monopolies restrict people's 
freedom, and to sacrifice freedom for econoic reasons is not only 
wrong, but against the principles of the people that created and 
gave their lives for this country.
    Microsoft has been stifling innovation by sucking up companies 
that had been creating innovative technology, to bring them under 
the umbrella of a corporation whose main focus is to monopolize 
every segment of the software market, not on creating innovative and 
quality products. To those that truly understand technology, the 
inadequacies of their software is so obvious as to not even warrant 
debate. Only those that do not understand the technology, or that 
have remained ignorant, sheltered in a world where there is only 
Microsoft software, do not see the deficiencies in their products.
    Microsoft has used a blunt and powerful instrument to monopolize 
the marketplace, while the proposed judgement attempts to finesse 
its way to correcting the problems. This will not work. Attempting 
to micromanage the individual issues that led to Microsoft's 
monopoly will fail. All that will be done is to ensure that 
Microsoft and their extensive resources find loopholes in the 
agreement that allow them to continue their illegal business 
practices.
    I am very upset with the settlement of this case as it shows 
that money and lawyers, and not citizens or principles, yield the 
most power in this country. It is not the justice department's job 
to engage in economic prediction, nor base their actions on such 
things. The justice department should make the punishment fit the 
crime and not let other peripheral factors dictate their actions.
    Tony Cassandra, Ph.D.



MTC-00017751

From: Ted Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft uses the advantage the number of systems that run 
Windows gives them to force their customers to constantly upgrade to 
new but still severely flawed operating systems.



MTC-00017752

From: alta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    During my 25-year span as a computer professional, I have 
watched Microsoft grow. I continue to be appalled that Microsoft has 
been able to sell unreliable, defective products using the following 
practices:
-Advertising non-existent products to kill legitimate competition.
-Buying companies in order to kill them
-Forcing large distributors to install Microsoft, only.
-Covering defective product internals with glitter and gold.
-Licenses that give them immunity to damage from defective products.
-Large campaign contributions to buy protection from government.
    The result has been:
-Many innovative companies have been destroyed.
-The world-dominant operating system (Windows) is defective,
-Users have come to expect that software crashes are normal.
-Due to licensing practices allowed in our (and other) countries, 
Microsoft is the only business of its size that is unaccountable for 
damages due to defects in its products.
-Windows is a serious threat to national security and to businesses.
-Now under investigation, they STILL continue these practices.
-Even the US government seems unable to touch this monopoly.
    I ask that you do what needs to be done with Microsoft. Please 
protect our national security, and give technological users and 
innovators a chance.
    Thank you for considering my view.
    Sincerely,
    Reed I. White
    ALTA RESEARCH



MTC-00017753

From: Cameron La Rue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. The following areas should be examined 
further:
    1) The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    2) The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret 
APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered.

[[Page 26458]]

    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    3) The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    4) The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft Microsoft has in the past inserted 
intentional incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from 
running on competing operating systems.
    5) The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    6) The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    These points are all discussed further at this URL: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Regards,
    Cameron La Rue,
    Phoenix, Arizona;
    Software Engineer,
    LSI Photomask



MTC-00017754

From: kieran hervold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Thanks to the heroic efforts of the Department of Justice in its 
case against Microsoft, there is room for hope for a of future 
technological progress unencumbered by Microsoft's monopolistic 
rule. However, the Settlement currently under consideration falls 
will not succeed in preventing future abuses by Microsoft. Most 
glaringly absent from the settlement is any mention of punitive 
measures available to the Technical Committee; the committee, 
therefor, has no recourse but another expensive and slow round of 
court hearings.
    Thank you for taking the time to consider the public's input,
    Kieran Hervold
    San Francisco, CA



MTC-00017755

From: Access
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case because I 
believe it is insufficient to restore a competitive marketplace and 
because the proposed settlement does not hold Microsoft adequately 
accountable.
    Thank you.
    Mark C. Onstad
    Access Music
    1537 Garnet Avenue
    San Diego, CA 92109
    http://accessmusicstore.com
    http://LLcrew.com
    [email protected]
    858-270-3987 phone
    209-755-5968 fax



MTC-00017756

From: Jim Cromie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I appreciate this opportunity to add my voice against the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    My one fear of this feedback process is that you will be buried 
by email generated by a concerted grass-roots lobbying effort by 
Microsoft, who are no doubt enlisting the support of 
``interested parties'', such as shareholders, employees, 
business and marketing partners, etc.
    The idea that the ``remedy'' is to allow Microsoft to 
``give'' their product to grade schools all over the 
country is a thinly veiled marketing ploy.
    They are giving away hardware only, the software has strings 
attached. Schools are where Apple products are most competetive with 
Microsoft, and this plan is a way to subsidize their competitive 
battle with Apple. I much prefer a settlement along the lines 
described by the CEO of Red Hat, Fines levied against Microsoft are 
used to grant cash to the school systems, who can then purchase what 
they want, w/o strings attached. Microsoft then competes with Apple 
and everyone else on a level playing field, based on the cost of 
their bid, and the features and support it includes.
    thank you



MTC-00017757

From: Michael D. Pritchett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I have a few concerns with the REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT 
(RPFJ) [found at the following web address http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/
cases/f9400/9495.htm]. On the whole, I do not believe that it will 
remedy Microsoft Conduct.
    1. The RPFJ Section III-D release of the API has two basic 
issues. The release of the information is via (``MSDN'') 
or similiar is current status quo. MSDN is a subscription 
system-so release of such information is not readily 
available. The timing of the release is not competitive. It allows 
Microsoft (i.e. Microsoft Office) access to such APIs across its 
product line before other have access to it, yielding unfair 
advantage in software development for Microsoft in any area of 
competing software.
    2. The RPFJ Section III-J provides an escape mechanism for 
the disclosure of Microsoft API, Documentation and/or Communications 
Protocols, by labeling such as security compromises. This broad 
loophole may be used to hide certain API and can place a significant 
burden on Enforcement Authority to oversee differences between 
general and security.
    3. The RPFJ does nothing for opening up other areas (i.e. File 
Formats) where Microsoft uses its OS monopoly as an ufair advantage.
    Sincerely,
    Michael D. Pritchett
    Senior Software Engineer
    STI-Inc.



MTC-00017758

From: Kenneth Smelcer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26459]]

    Dear Sirs,
    I do not feel the proposed settlement agreement between the DoJ 
and Microsoft should be allowed to stand. Microsoft has been 
determined by the courts to be a monopoly in the PC browser and 
operating system marketplace and therefore should be held to a 
higher standard of conduct. I do not believe the current settlement 
will keep Microsoft from exploiting its monopoly status when 
competing in other PC application arenas. Any settlement needs to 
require Microsoft to fully disclose all interfaces (APIs, file 
formats, etc.) and to have strong enforcement support to make sure 
Microsoft follows these directives.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth T. Smelcer



MTC-00017759

From: Bear Giles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing you to express two major concerns about the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    First, Section III.J paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) allow Microsoft to 
condition disclosure of API, Documentation and Communcations 
Protocol of the authentication system on the basis of Microsoft's 
determination of the viability of the requestor's business and 
product. As I, and many others, read these clauses Microsoft could 
unilaterally refuse to provide any documentation to the widely used 
SAMBA tools since this is an open source project with neither a 
business nor a viable ``commercial'' product.
    Yet this free software-of no commercial value-is 
widely used to replace Microsoft Windows file and print servers with 
Unix servers running SAMBA. The companies benefit from reduced 
license fees and a perceived (and probably real) increase in 
reliability.
    With these clauses, Microsoft could unilaterally render SAMBA 
sites obsolete by implementing a new authentication method for file 
and print sharing and refusing to disclose it to the SAMBA team on 
the basis of the lack of a viable commercial product. This harms the 
interests of the SAMBA team and of countless third-party users of 
their software. The sole beneficiary is Microsoft itself, since it 
can anticipate increased licensing fees to replace the free 
alternatives. Given the conflict of interest, I would like to see 
the proposed settlement modified to accomodate legitimate open 
source projects in addition to viable commercial businesses. I 
understand and accept that there may need to be reasonable 
restrictions on what a legitimate open source project is to avoid it 
being used as an end-run around the commercial viability clause, but 
SAMBA and other major programs should certainly qualify by whatever 
criteria is adopted.
    Second, more generally Section III.J paragraph 1(a) allows 
Microsoft to avoid disclosing APIs, documentation and communications 
protocols related to various security, encryption and rights 
management systems. History has repeatedly shown that systems with 
documented APIs and protocols are more secure than those that keep 
this information secret. Public disclosure ensures that problems are 
detected AND FIXED as early as possible as the ``white 
hats'' quietly notify the responsible parties before public 
disclosure of the need to update the software.
    Nondisclosure, in contrast, does little to slow down a dedicated 
attacker. The results are far more catastrophic since the 
``black hats'' will not only attack anyway, they'll attack 
victims who have been lulled into a false sense of confidence by the 
``secrecy'' around the API and protocols. Ideally, I would 
like to see the sense of this clause reversed. Perhaps something 
along the lines of:
    This Final Judgement shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to fully document, disclose and license to 
third parties any and all portions of the API or Documentation or 
Communications Protocols related to the anti-piracy, anti-virus, 
software licensing, digital rights management, encryption and 
authentication systems, unless lawfully directed not to do so by a 
governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
    2. Permit Microsoft to keep confidential the specific keys and 
authorization tokens used with the APIs and protocols discussed 
above.
    Respectfully,
    Bear Giles
    Coyote Song LLC
    Boulder, Colorado
    [email protected]



MTC-00017760

From: Bob Steward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I have been saddened to see that the DoJ seems to have caved in 
to the demands of Microsoft in a proceeding which is supposed to be 
a penalty phase for them after having been ruled against in Court.
    It is widely seen in the personal computer field that 
Microsoft's attitude and actions are obviously those on a major 
monopoly wielding their ``big stick''. From the mid-
eighties on, the industry comment on Microsoft's tactics with the 
operating system against its competitors was ``DOS isn't done 
``til Lotus won't run!''
    Where there used to be a large number of major competitors in 
such things as word processors and spread sheets, there is now 
essentially only Microsoft Office. Not even all die hard Microsoft 
cheerleaders will say that Microsoft Office is a superior product to 
the Lotus 1-2-3 and Word Perfect products that Office 
were created to compete against. So if it isn't a ``superior 
product'', why has it stamped out all other competing programs? 
Because of insidious ``features'' like proprietary formats 
that change with each release, requiring that everyone who exchanges 
documents must also ``upgrade'' in order to continue to 
work together.
    They have relentlessly crushed new innovation and existing 
competitive products with tactics that included announcing that the 
features of a competitor's product would be ``free'' in 
the next release of Windows. This has had the effect of removing the 
financing of companies because of announcements that the next 
Microsoft release would ``give away'' the product that a 
particular company had developed. Many excellent products were 
destroyed in the name of ``competition'' from Microsoft. 
Even startup companies with no current product for sale were 
destroyed by this tactic. If the word went out from Redmond that 
some feature would be in a future release, then the startup would be 
at the nearly insurmountable disadvantage of having conceived of an 
idea and worked to develop a feature set and screen shots in order 
to make an announcement to the public (and potential backers) that 
they were going to release a particular program, only to Microsoft 
suggest that this was a ``new feature'' to be incorporated 
into Windows. This announcement might or might not actually come to 
fruition on Microsoft's part, but it stopped the would be 
competition dead in their tracks since they knew they could not 
survive a direct frontal assault by Microsoft. Consider the Stacker 
vs. Microsoft case in which Stacker won a multi-million dollar 
judgement against Microsoft for having stolen Stacker's code for use 
in Microsoft's DoubleSpace drive compression, and yet Stacker was 
forced out of business and bought by Microsoft without Stacker ever 
collecting the judgement.
    There are many other examples, such as the wholesale re-use of 
Mosaic code to create Internet Explorer and the subsequent bundling 
of it with Windows causing the brilliant innovator Netscape to 
collapse. Even today years after Internet Explorer was bundled with 
Windows, Netscape remains a superior product with a better user 
interface, but changes in Microsoft code continue to damage users of 
Netscape because Microsoft's Monopoly allows them to break 
``standards'' and thus cause other products to spend large 
amounts of manpower to keep their code working with the latest 
Microsoft changes.
    I personally feel that money damages alone would not effectively 
level the playing field for all that wish to compete for the 
public's computer software dollar. Rather, it would seem that 
Microsoft should be given a dose of their own medicine and be barred 
from developing or releasing ANY internet applications or in 
bundling applications with the operating system such that for a 
period of say 5 years they can not enter the market place with 
anything that is an internet application. This would have the effect 
of letting other competitors build a lively marketplace and 
encourage innovation and competition such that at some future date 
when (if?) Microsoft is allowed back into the arena, they will have 
to PROVE their product is superior, and not just under bid and pre-
bundle to kill off their established competitors.
    The plainly biased offer by Microsoft to provide a billion 
dollars in computer hardware and software to schools as a 
``penalty'' is ludicrous. This only enables them to snare 
the next generation of computer users at an even younger age and 
train them up to be experienced at using ONLY Microsoft's products. 
Further their accounting would value the software at some 
``retail'' price which effectively puts profit back in 
Microsoft's pocket. Rather if a

[[Page 26460]]

``sanction'' like this were to go forward, the hardware 
should be purchased by Microsoft from non-affiliated companies, and 
the software should be a mix of Open Source alternatives, such that 
Microsoft is not further extending its monopoly at the expense of 
other computer innovators.
    The effects of letting Microsoft ``own'' commerce on 
the internet with their ``.NET'' initiative and several 
other projects (Hailstorm) that seem aimed at REQUIRING Microsoft to 
be an integral partner in matters they have no business in seem 
pressing enough to prod even the most jaded bureaucrat into action 
to turn back the juggernaut which Microsoft has become to the 
detriment of PC users everywhere.
    While much more could be said about this, I can only hope that 
your time will be more productively spent STOPPING the collapse of 
sanctions against Microsoft, so I shall rest.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Steward
    Birmingham, AL



MTC-00017761

From: Dan Gary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea 
and must be reconsidered. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
monopolistic practices and should be punished. Microsoft is still 
continuing their practices today and should be punished in an 
appropriate manner to make them stop.



MTC-00017762

From: Brian Roderick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I do not think that the settlement provides strong 
enough remedies to prevent Microsoft from continuing its mopolistic 
behaviors. The remedy should include opening of the Windows source 
code. Please do not let Microsoft ``get away with 
murder,'' as it were.
    The Microsoft settlement is a BAD idea.
    Thank you,
    -brian



MTC-00017763

From: Nasal, Caroline A
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Caroline Nasal



MTC-00017764

From: David Gustafson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believed that Microsoft is a monopoly that is using it's power 
to squash competition. In order to see a healthier OS marketplace I 
would like to see them punished for their anti-competitive acts.
    Companies like Enron and Microsoft should be punished for 
causing people like me to lose faith in the ``free 
market'' system. In order for conservatives to be able to 
continue to say ``the market will solve the problem'' 
Microsoft must be punished. Otherwise it is all just empty talk by 
people who are robbing us all. I say go after them for racketeering.
    David Gustafson
    System and Network Administrator
    [email protected]



MTC-00017765

From: Dallas Pesola
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-
    I Chose Internet Explorer over Netscape I worked at IBM and 
Netscape was the only browser on our workstations. I loved Netscape! 
I used it when others were talking about using Internet Explorer 
(probably because it came with their home PC operating systems). I 
didn't have a home PC, only an IBM Thinkpad provided to me at work. 
I decided to download Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE) to try it 
for myself. I started using it and noticed features of the browser 
that provided me benefits that Netscape could not offer with their 
currently package. The more I used MSIE, the more I liked it. The 
point is...I made my own choice to use MSIE because I felt that it 
was a superior product. I am the user, I use the software and I make 
my own choice as to which I prefer. I prefer MSIE. With that said, 
if Netscape ever releases a browser that functions in a manner in 
which I find beneficial to me, the user, then I may switch back. 
Until then.....
    Sincerely,
    Dallas Pesola
    2712 U.S. 41 West
    Marquette, MI 49855



MTC-00017766

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am the system administrator for Carlisle School, a small 
independent school in Southwest Virginia. We have over 200 computers 
in active use with a variety of operating systems, most of which are 
versions of Microsoft Windows. I am deeply concerned about the 
current state of the Microsoft anti-trust settlement. We rely 
heavily on donations of money and hardware in order to continue to 
provide our students with the computing background they need for 
college and later in life. The biggest obstacle to my job is the 
lack of viable alternatives for expensive Microsoft products. The 
current settlement will not do anything to address the major 
problems that we face with our computers: Microsoft Office.
    The school adopted Microsoft Office 2000 as its office suite 
shortly before I was hired. We would very much like to be able to 
look at alternatives such as Wordperfect Office from Corel, which 
offer better features and/or pricing that is more friendly to small 
academic institutions. Unfortunately Microsoft's closed document 
formats make this all but impossible. If a student saves a document 
in Word at home they won't be able to print it out and turn it in 
here at school unless we also have Word. I am unable to recommend 
alternative products to students asking my advice on computer 
purchases because they need to be compatible with what we have here 
at school. If Microsoft's office document formats were made public, 
then I would be free to shop around and find the solution that best 
served the students'' needs. I could tell students about a 
variety of office suites and help them make informed decisions. As 
it stands, I am terrified of the day when Microsoft changes its 
format to something Office 2000 cannot read, forcing us to deal with 
expensive and restrictive licenses on software that will likely not 
run on 65% of our machines. The current settlement does nothing to 
address the issue of opening up MS document formats, and therefore 
does little to help the students of Carlisle School.
    Marshall Chaney
    System Administrator/Videographer
    Carlisle School
    300 Carlisle Road
    P. O. Box 5388
    Martinsville, Virginia 24115
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017767

From: R.S.Giner-Sorolla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a US citizen, I believe the settlement does not go far 
enough. Count me against it.
    No payment was received in exchange for this email.
    Roger Giner-Sorolla, Ph.D.
    Lecturer, Department of Psychology
    Keynes College A2.1
    University of Kent at Canterbury
    Canterbury, Kent CT2 3NP
    United Kingdom
    tel +44 (0)1227 823085
    fax +44 (0)1227 827030
    omit +44 when calling from inside UK
    omit (0) when calling from outside UK



MTC-00017768

From: Adam Riggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is not a good idea since it has no real 
remedy power or future limitation of monopoly exploitation. Please 
add me to the Tunney comment petition.
    Adam Riggs



MTC-00017769

From: Robert D Vincent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
23 January 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse:

[[Page 26461]]

    I'm writing to comment on the proposed settlement in the U.S. 
Department of Justice's action against Microsoft.
    I strongly feel that the tentative settlement should be 
rejected. It needs to be strengthened in many areas in order to 
restore real competition in the software marketplace.
    One particular thing I would like to see added to the settlement 
is a requirement that Microsoft publicly document the file formats 
for all Microsoft Office documents, including Microsoft Outlook. In 
addition, Microsoft's licensing practices need to be reformed across 
the board. This includes their end-user licenses, site licenses, 
developer licenses for redistributable components
    Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Vincent
    40 Cummings Rd
    Newton, MA 02459



MTC-00017770

From: William M. Shubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Renata Hesse,
    I am writing in regards to the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. In short, I find it appallingly weak. I have been in the 
computer industry for over ten years now, and have seen up close 
what Microsoft's business practices have been. When I heard Judge 
Jackson's ruling, that Microsoft was not only a monpoly but had used 
its monopoly status to harm its competitors, I was relieved. I have 
long felt that Microsoft is not only willing but eager to do 
anything it takes to take away market share from its competitors; 
usually this is not a problem, in fact it may be considered 
admirable determination in most companies. The difference is that 
Microsoft's operating system monopoly (and more recently the 
monopolies in word processing and spreadsheets) gives it 
opportunities to ``win'' a market not by producing a 
better product but by sabotaging the products or marketing plans of 
its competitors, and Microsoft has used these tecniques repeatedly, 
to the detriment of both consumers and the overall computer 
industry. This relief at Judge Jackson's ruling turned to dismay 
when I read the new settlement.
    The new settlement, in my view, does little or nothing to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing its current practices. Most parts 
of the settlement ``sound right'' if you skim over it, but 
in fact every single part has loopholes or weaknesses that render 
the entire settlement ineffective. In fact, the settlement reads as 
if it were written by Microsoft itself, trying to find a document 
that would do nothing but provide a smokescreen that Microsoft can 
hide behind as it continues its business as usual.
    What follows is a couple specific examples of problems with the 
settlement; I could have written many more!
    First, Part III.E of the settlement states that Microsoft must 
provide information to others about its communications protocols. 
This sounds good; one of the things preventing people from switching 
to non-microsoft operating systems is the difficulty of getting non-
microsoft systems to work together with the existing microsoft-based 
computers. But when this paragraph is read carefully, it is found to 
be lacking; for example, the protocols must be distributed, but only 
under ``reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.'' But 
reasonable and non-discriminatory in whose view? The free unix 
variants are now Microsoft's biggest competitors, but any non-
disclosure or per-sale fee would be completely impossible for these 
competitors to meet due to their open source and freely distributed 
nature! Thus one of the paragraphs which will do most to enable 
Microsoft's current competitors to compete is made completey 
useless.
    Second, there is absolutely nothing in the settlement to deal 
with Microsoft's past abuses of its monopoly status. Microsoft had 
been put under restrictions for its monopolistic practices before, 
and it was found to be still acting as a harmful monopoly, but yet 
it's punishment is only more restrictions? What is the point of 
placing restrictions on Microsoft if when they are violated the 
punishment is essentially nonexistant? It seems that Microsoft must 
be given a punishment, not out of spite, but just to ensure that 
this new set of restrictions will not be ignored as the previous 
ones were.
    Sincerely,
    William Shubert,
    Computer Engineer
    2014 NW Glisan St. #510
    Portland OR 97209



MTC-00017771

From: Jones Daniel E USARPAC DCSINT
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You've got to be joking.
    The terms of the proposed ``settlement'' seem little 
more than an outright surrender. Guess that the DOJ is too worried 
about homeland security now to care about the fact Microsoft has 
established and is maintaining one of the most extensive and 
aggressive monopolies in decades.
    Let's recall that Microsoft has been found guilty, repeatedly, 
by various courts and judges, of criminal violations. Let's recall 
that their behavior hasn't changed a bit throughout the period. 
Let's recall that its representatives have been caught telling 
outright lies to the courts. And now let's ask ourselves if 
extracting a promise to be better is really an effective solution. 
The answer should be obvious. Alas, it appears to have eluded our 
fine DOJ. So just in case you couldn't guess, the answer is 
``NO''.
    I'm surprised the judge would allow her intelligence to be 
insulted in this manner.
    Dan Jones
    Kailua, Hawaii



MTC-00017772

From: James Dornan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement does much more harm than 
good, does not help those harmed by Microsoft, and in fact, does 
only help Microsoft.
    James H. Dornan
    2724 E. 11th Street
    Long Beach, CA 90804



MTC-00017773

From: Mark J. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am currently a 4th-year student in Electrical Engineering / 
Computer Science at the University of California, Berkeley. I am 
writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in the Microsoft 
Antitrust case. In reading over the PFJ and commentary regarding it, 
I have come across many loopholes and frailties in the proposed 
settlement.
    Chief among my concerns is the complete and total disregard for 
publishing file formats. I use KDE (http://www.kde.org) on top of a 
FreeBSD kernel (http://www.freebsd.org), and I have found it nearly 
impossible to interact with any sort of Windows documents. These 
proprietary formats have changed greatly over the years and across 
Windows versions, and without sufficient documentation, other 
applications have no way to interact with the files.
    Add to this the near-complete monopoly Microsoft has in the 
business world, and people like me who choose not to use Microsoft 
products are punished severely. As I mentioned, I'm a 4th-year 
student, about to graduate and trying to find a job. I have been 
appalled at how many potential employers demand Word documents for 
resumes. I have also been consistently irritated by receiving 
Microsoft documents via email without an effective way to read them. 
All of this makes the cost of switching to competing products a very 
painful process for anybody contemplating a change.
    Secondly, the PFJ does nothing to prevent Microsoft from 
introducing unnecessary incompatibilities to gain an edge on other 
products. I use Samba, a Windows-compliance package that allows my 
computer to transfer files to and from Windows machines on my 
network, but it does not work with all versions because of 
Microsoft's insistence on changing the protocol with each new 
version of Windows. Samba is perpetually playing a game of blind 
catch-up, because the changes occur without notification or 
documentation. This behavior encourages others in my situation to 
migrate from my preferred platform because of monopolistic reasons, 
and should be a target of the settlement.
    Third, Microsoft licensing provisions make it very difficult for 
software vendors to write software that runs on platforms other than 
MS Windows. This produces a chicken & egg problem that 
discourages consumers from trying other products because of a lack 
of usable commercial software. Please consider these comments 
carefully. Microsoft is widely considered to have a hold on more 
than 90% of the desktop market. Microsoft has proven itself 
unwilling to obey the spirit of the court's ruling before-I 
can recall several incidents off the top of my head, such as their 
rigged demo of Windows without IE, their flagrant theft and broken 
reimplentation

[[Page 26462]]

of disk compression back in the days of DOS... this settlement has 
to be airtight. Remember that Microsoft has attained its current 
position by illegal means, and the results have meant poorer quality 
software for consumers.
    Thank you for reading this.
    Mark Miller
    Student, UC Berkeley
    Berkeley, California



MTC-00017774

From: Jason T. Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the proposed final judgement in United States v. 
Microsoft. It does not go far enough in reducing Microsoft's ability 
to extend their monopoly illegally. Splitting Microsoft into two 
companies (Applications and Operating Systems) would be an ideal 
solution, since it would enable applications such as Microsoft 
Office to be developed for alternate operating systems, allowing 
them to be competitive with the Windows platform.
    In addition, there's a lack of an effective enforcement 
mechanism. Perhaps an independent committee with investigative 
powers would be appropriate.
    Please reconsider the settlement if at all possible-as it 
currently stands, it will impede the progress of freedom, fail to 
give justice for innovations crushed by the Microsoft machine, and 
hurt the economy.
    Please contact me if you have further questions.
    Jason T. Collins
    Software Engineer



MTC-00017775

From: Steve Sarette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'm writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is a bad idea. Any settlement that does not force 
Microsoft to open its file formats and it's API set is a bad idea.
    I've been working in the computing industry for 17 years now so 
I've seen a lot of the history of this thing. As I see it, the 
fundamental problem with Microsoft's monopoly is not the cost of 
their products or the ``innovation'' that they bring to 
software development. Instead, it is the control they exert over the 
data on the machines. After all, for most of us the data is the 
central point of computing. It is the reason why we use a computer 
in the first place.
    By data I mean the word processing file that you are working on. 
Or your email. Or your personal/business finances, or the website 
that you are developing. It is that new song you wrote and want to 
digitally record. It is the research that you want to do online.
    By allowing Microsoft to maintain an unsupervised monopoly on 
the desktop, we are handing them the ability to control how data is 
recorded, edited, and accessed. We allow them to determine how we 
can speak our minds, run our businesses, even build our products. 
And when we do that, we give them the ability to levy a tax on, 
effectively, our ideas.
    For example, today when people want to collaborate on a document 
it is not unusual for them to use Microsoft Word to do so. After 
all, Word is bundled with most machines that come pre-loaded with MS 
Windows (which is to say over 95% of all computers sold). Almost 
everyone has it. It is convenient to do so.
    But what if I don't want to use Windows? What if I prefer to use 
an Apple Macintosh instead? Sure Word is available for the 
Mac-for a few hundred dollars.
    Or what if, instead, I'm one of the millions of users of Unix 
operating systems and their variants? While there are plenty of 
products like Microsoft Word for those platforms, Word itself is not 
available there. Yet because Microsoft keeps its file formats a 
secret, the interoperability between those products and Word is 
difficult at best. So because 95% of the work force is using Word, 
the rest of us are forced to use it as well. If I want to use a Unix 
machine to do my job, I still have to purchase a windows machine in 
order to collaborate with my colleagues. Even worse, if one of my 
colleagues decides to purchase a new Windows machine, most likely he 
will receive a new version of Word on that new box. But because 
Microsoft does not provide compatibility even between different 
versions of their own products, that means everyone else will also 
have to upgrade Word (at no small cost) if we want to effectively 
continue to collaborate on documents.
    Ultimately this is how Microsoft's continued monopoly and habit 
of bundling software with their operating system hurts consumers. I 
can't use a low-cost alternative to Microsoft's software because it 
is too difficult to make that software work with Microsoft. So my 
alternative is to purchase expensive hardware and software that I 
don't want and then forever after to be on Microsoft's upgrade path.
    By the way, I already see this pattern repeating with Internet 
Explorer. Most website today are tuned to work best with IE. If you 
tend to access the web with browsers other than IE, you will find 
websites that do not render properly or refuse you access 
altogether. I wonder how long it will be before the entire web is an 
IE-only experience, if only because that is the most convenient, and 
inexpensive, thing to do? I wonder how long after that it will be 
before I am forced to start paying for IE upgrades?
    Please reject any settlement that does not require Microsoft to 
open its file formats and its API set (the two are joined at the 
hip). The settlement should require this of all current and future 
Microsoft products. Further, there should be external auditing and 
supervision to ensure that Microsoft complies with any such 
settlement.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Steve Sarette
    1206 Rousseau Drive
    Sunnyvale, CA 94087



MTC-00017776

From: Barron Richard J
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 2:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Microsoft abhors competition. They are bullies about it. That 
needs to change before we will see any improvement in the way their 
software works and in innovative new products that people enjoy 
using.
    Regulate the heck out of them until their market share falls and 
other companies that aren't influenced by Gates/Balmer get some 
breathing room again. Their software isn't that great. If you had 
some other options you would see that.
    The problem is that now they have so much money they can buy 
influence, stuff comment boxes like this one, and have the audacity 
to try to apologize by further increasing their market share in 
schools-one of the last bastions of hope for Apple computer. 
That makes about as much sense as ``punishing'' someone 
who took too many slices of pizza by making him take another slice!
    Imagine the possibilities in computing if the competition 
weren't bought out, litigated away, or had their brain trusts stolen 
from under them by Microsoft. You might not have viruses, you might 
enjoy using your computer again, and you probably wouldn't be facing 
the prospects of ``renting'' your software through an on-
line service for the sole sake of squeezing each last dime out of 
you to stuff the pockets of the richest man on earth.
    Rich Barron
    Cypress, Ca



MTC-00017777

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have two issues with the current Microsoft settlement:
    1. Section III.E limits the disclosure of Commications Protocols 
to the entities described in Section III.I. This is insufficient. A 
provision must be made such that these Commications Protocols are 
fully documented and available to anyone. Specifically, the current 
wording excludes open source software projects.
    2. A new provision regarding disclosure of file and filesystem 
formats should be added. By doing this, the barrier for entry for 
competing applications is lowered. This measure would not inhibit 
Microsoft's ability to innovate since the file format of an 
application is seperate from the features of the application. 
Additionally, disclosure filesystem formats would promote Operating 
System competition by reducing the cost of switching from one 
Operating System to another. Finally, this disclosure must also be 
available anyone. Specifically, open source software projects must 
be included.
    TIA,
    Sam Ziegler
    Senior Software Engineer
    Xpedion Design Systems
    Address: 1825 Lincoln Ave
    San Jose, CA
    95125



MTC-00017778

From: Robert (038) Linda McGraw K4TAX
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26463]]

Date: 1/23/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this is a bad deal.
    Bob McGraw
    171 Grandview Dr.
    Sparta, TN 38583



MTC-00017779

From: George and Edie Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
Edith Wallace
3428 Sorrel Lane
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The time has come for the Microsoft litigation to come to an 
end. I use Microsoft's products, and am quite satisfied with what 
the company has done for the consumer. Continuing the litigation 
will only impede Microsoft's ability to continue developing new 
products. I would much rather see Microsoft's resources put toward 
research and development rather than toward legal fees. Further, I 
think the government has more important issues to pursue, such as 
the Enron affair.
    The settlement agreement will achieve the goal of ensuring no 
future antitrust violations occur. A technical review committee will 
monitor Microsoft. Complaints may be lodged with the committee, and 
the committee may assist with dispute resolution, if that is 
necessary. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to disclose its code 
to its competitors, and to not enter into agreements with third 
parties to exclusively distribute or promote Windows. I do not see 
how continuing the lawsuit will do any more than what the settlement 
agreement will achieve.
    I am hopeful the Court will approve this settlement agreement. 
Nothing will be gained by dragging this case on further. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Edith Wallace
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017780

From: John Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    John Clayton Long
    Tallahassee, Florida



MTC-00017781

From: Nikolai Barov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    According to what I have read about the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, I believe it will be mostly ineffective, amounting to 
just a slap on the wrist.
    The most damaging thing Microsoft does is to ``embrace and 
extend'' other people's technologies, as happened with kerberos 
and Java, and to keep their own data protocols in a constant state 
of flux, so that only their applications can access the data.
    Not only does this cause a great deal of frustration for the 
end-user, but it also confirms that Microsoft's products can't stand 
on their own merits, and need these dirty tactics in order to 
compete. Here's what I would find satisfactory:
    The provisions within the settlement that address the opening up 
of protocols should be radically strengthened. And this information 
needs to be made available to any interested party, not just other 
big companies. An inquiry should be made about the extent to which 
the federal and state governments can limit the money they spend on 
information products relying on proprietary or unpublished protocols 
and data formats.
    This should come as a package deal as part of the settlement.
    Thank you,
    Nick Barov
    Chicago, IL



MTC-00017782

From: Robert (038) Linda McGraw K4TAX
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Too many big companies, too much influence equals a bad deal for 
everyone.
    Bob McGraw



MTC-00017783

From: paul pettus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Paul Pettus



MTC-00017784

From: A.W.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed MS settlment is in my opinion toothless and will 
further tie the success and growth of the entire field to the whims 
of one company.
    Aaron. Woodard.



MTC-00017785

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement to the 
Microsoft Anti-trust settlemnt. Allowing Microsoft to pay its debt 
to society with its own software seems to artificially inflate the 
true penalty they pay and increases their market share in new 
fields. I agree with the arguments published by Microsoft's business 
competitors, Apple and RedHat, which propose that the schools should 
receive cash and buy their own (possibly non-Microsoft) software and 
hardware.
    Dennis Geels
    Dennis Geels
    [email protected]



MTC-00017786

From: Carlos Gonzalez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disappointment with the proposed 
settlement against Microsoft, Inc. As a long-time software developer 
and computer user, it has been clear to me that Microsoft has been 
acting as a monopoly- I was pleased to see when the government came 
to this conclusion as well. However, the proposed settlement does 
not alleviate this problem, nor does it limit Microsoft from 
continuing much of the same monopolistic behavior it practices 
today.
    I feel that any settlement needs to guarantee the ability of 
software developers to interface with the Microsoft operating 
system. Specifically, I was disappointed to read the definition of 
API being used in the settlement, as well as the limiting of what 
information Microsoft needs to publish about its operating system. 
There exist many loopholes that Microsoft could use to ensure that a 
third-party developer would not be able to bring their application 
to Windows due to incomplete documentation.
    I also feel that any settlement needs to give an OEM free reign 
in terms of what software and operating system they place on their 
hardware. Again, loopholes exist in the settlement such that 
Microsoft could offer discounts to OEMs that ship their software 
exclusively. Also, licenses to developers seem to limit what they 
can work on to Windows-only software. There was also the well 
publicized case of the Microsoft Front Page license, which seemed to 
prohibit someone from working on a website that was critical of 
Microsoft.
    Again, these issues will continue to exist if the proposed 
settlement is accepted. Please take the time to ensure that any 
settlement

[[Page 26464]]

will actually prevent Microsoft's anti-competitive practices and 
will allow the computer industry to flourish. All I am asking is 
that two factors be considered:
    1.) Developers should be able to create software that works with 
Microsoft's operating systems. This means they must have access to 
necessary documentation and be permitted to create applications 
which compete with Microsoft's own.
    2.) Companies and individuals should be given the right to 
choose non-Microsoft software if they want. Locking in an OEM or a 
developer or a user to Microsoft-only solutions will only serve to 
strengthen Microsoft's monopoly. Thank you for your time.
    Carlos Gonzalez



MTC-00017787

From: David Prosper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to add my voice to the growing number of people concerned 
with this case. I for one feel that Microsft has commited many 
illegal actions in the past and it continues to do so to this day. 
With the release of Windows XP Microsoft has demonstrated that the 
findings of fact in now way mean anything to them, and they continue 
to follow their tried-and-true predatory business practices. 
Another, even greater concern lies in the privacy-or lack of it-of 
their customers with their integration of Passport services directly 
into the OS. One student who recenty purchased a Windows XP laptop 
said to me, ``They're forcing me to get one of these 
Passports.'' The incessant reminders and nags on the desktop 
had driven him to point of relenting and signing up for a service 
that he neither wanted or needed. Is this good business?
    At work I use Windows NT, but at home I use BeOS, an operating 
system produced by a company that no longer exists. Be Inc. was a 
victim of Microsoft's ``Bootloader'' restriction on OEMs. 
Companies such as Hitachi and Compaq were intersted in installing 
BeOS along with Windows in a dual-boot configuration, and such pre-
installation would have had the potential to greatly expand the BeOS 
user base. However, after Microsoft heard of this they dispatched 
their legal team to each vendor that was going to offer the BeOS, 
and subsequently no vendor offered the BeOS (with the exception of 
Hitachi, who installed the BeOS but were obligated to not have a 
boot menu with a choice of the two operating systems, and who were 
fearful of even telling their customers that there was an 
alternative OS on their computers. Most of the customers booted into 
Windows without ever knowing there was an alternative). As a 
consequence Be Inc. bled money throughout the 90's and vainly tried 
to refocus their efforts in the last year on Internet Appliances 
before being bought out by Palm Inc..
    Microsoft is an arrogant and dangerous force not only in this 
country but around the world. Their predatory business practices 
must be checked for the good of the computer industry, the economy, 
and society as a whole. This cannot be achived with a mere slap on 
the wrist but with a settlement or judgement that has real teeth. 
The settlement proposed by the nine states refusing to go with the 
original settlement looks very interesting...
    Sincerely,
    David Prosper
    Victim of Microsoft



MTC-00017788

From: Jon Bondy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've written software professionally all of my life. I remember 
when Microsoft did not exist. In my opinion, Microsoft's practices 
have been predatory and unfair for decades. The settlement reached 
by the government with MS neither punishes MS enough nor does it 
provide safeguards that similar problems will not occur in the 
future. With MS products crashing all around us (MS servers and the 
new MS Windows XP are full of bugs), MS should NOT be given any 
advantage in the marketplace. There is a sense in which our national 
security depends on reliable software, and MS is not providing it. 
The settlement should be much more harsh, and should include 
specific oversight functions to ensure compliance. MS should NOT be 
trusted to comply.
    Jon Bondy
    Fletcher, Vermont



MTC-00017789

From: Duvel, Cynthia Y.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-Just Say No!
    As a member of the computing community at large, I have to say I 
cannot agree with this settlement. It leaves too much power in the 
hands of Microsoft, and still leaves them with the leeway to 
continue to crush any other program that happens to get in their 
way. I believe in healthy competition, not the wanton destruction of 
companies that just might happen to have something that isn't 
Windows-friendly. As an avid Netscape user, I have frequently known 
microsoft products and microsoft sponsored websites to crash my 
system if I'm using Netscape, and the PFJ completely fails to 
prohibit intentional incompatibilities historically used by 
Microsoft. That's just one many of my complaints against Microsoft 
in general, but having been a web programmer in the past, it's one 
of my more vocal objections.
    Please do not allow this to pass. Microsoft needs far more 
restrictions placed upon it before I will even begin to think that 
it has ceased to attempt to crush the rest of the computing world. 
Like the Bell monopoly, MS needs to be taken down, or eventually 
there will be nothing else left. And once there is no more 
competition, MS would no longer need to attempt to improve their 
product, leaving the public with a substandard product (which is 
what I consider it currently to be), and no way to improve.
    C.Y.D. Shelby
    Engineer III
    BAE Systems
    Burke, VA



MTC-00017790

From: Sarah H Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea.
    Sincerely,
    Sarah Brown



MTC-00017791

From: Jones, Philip B. (LNG)
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/23/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It does nothing 
to punish MS for bad past behaviour and does too little, too late to 
effect change going forward.
    Phil Jones
    Senior Software Engineer Science Direct
    1-800-227-9597 x8774 phil.jones@lexis-
nexis.com
    A witty saying proves nothing-Voltaire



MTC-00017792

From: Eric Nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I recently found out that the DOJ is considering opinions from 
the public regarding the Microsoft anti-trust case. I have reviewed 
the documents related to the case. Frankly, I was shocked and 
dismayed by what I read. I have identified numerous serious concerns 
which MUST be addressed before any final settlement can take place.
    To me, it appears as if the US Department of Justice has allowed 
Microsoft to write it's own settlement. I find it difficult to 
believe that any judge or laywer who knows anything at all about the 
computer software industry could have aggreed to these terms. Note 
for example that under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, 
Microsoft can withhold technical information from third parties on 
the grounds that Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity 
and viability of its business''. Not only does this wording 
blatantly leave room for abuse of the Microsoft monopoly, but it 
even goes so far as to place Microsoft in charge of deciding who is 
an authentic/viable business. This is comparable to letting a fox 
guard the hen house. This is never a good thing, it will always come 
back to bite you somewhere down the road... just look at what 
happened with Enron.
    ``The overall result is that the proposed settlement, which 
(make no mistake about it) would grant Microsoft its operating 
system monopoly, contains, statements which say that it would no 
longer be illegal for Microsoft to maintain its monopoly, while 
saying that if Microsoft wants to, it can make it easier for people 
to write Windows applications, but it's by no means required to do 
so. In short, the settlement is a travesty, an ill-advised 
embarrassment that flings down and dances upon the law and upon all 
but the most twisted notion of justice.''1
    Thank you for taking the time to read my opinion,

[[Page 26465]]

    Sincerely,
    Eric Nichols
    Marlbough, MA
    Programmer/Analyst
    Raybeam Solutions, Inc,
    http://www.raybeam.com
    1 Dennis Powell-LinuxPlanet.com



MTC-00017793

From: Nathan Cohick
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 3.1 
to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems An episode 
from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit illustrates how 
Microsoft has used technical means anticompetitively. Microsoft's 
original operating system was called MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS 
API to call up the services of the operating system. Digital 
Research offered a competing operating system, DR-DOS, that also 
implemented the DOS API, and could run programs written for MS-DOS. 
Windows 3.1 and earlier were not operating systems per se, but 
rather middleware that used the DOS API to interoperate with the 
operating system. Microsoft was concerned with the competitive 
threat posed by DR-DOS, and added code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 
so it would display spurious and misleading error messages when run 
on DR-DOS. Digital Research's successor company, Caldera, brought a 
private antitrust suit against Microsoft in 1996. The judge in the 
case ruled that: ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence 
that the incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive 
scheme by Microsoft.''
    That case was settled out of court in 1999, and no court has 
fully explored the alleged conduct.
    The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge 
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to 
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so 
that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as 
they did earlier with Windows 3.1. The PFJ as currently written does 
nothing to prohibit these kinds of restrictive licenses and 
intentional incompatibilities, and thus encourages Microsoft to use 
these techniques to enhance the Applications Barrier to Entry, and 
harming those consumers who use non-Microsoft operating systems and 
wish to use Microsoft applications software.
    This should be changed in the PFJ so that Microsoft cannot use 
this against the non-Microsoft users.
    Thank you,
    Nathan Cohick,
    Design Engineer
    Advanced Bionics
    California, USA



MTC-00017794

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wed Jan 23 01:23:50 PM EST 2002
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. The settlement as it is currently negotiated 
has no teeth in it, and it will not restrain Microsoft's abuse of 
its monopoly power. Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly are still 
continuing. A recent example is the transfer of Silicon Graphics 
Inc.'s key 3D patents to Microsoft; see
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html Silicon 
Graphics used to be in the forefront of producing graphics software; 
the movie industry is still very much dependent on Silicon Graphics 
software. The destruction of Silicon Graphics is connected with the 
tenure as chief executive officer of Richard Belluzzo, when Silicon 
Graphics was trying to move its software from a Unix environment to 
a Microsoft environment. Since then Richard Belluzzo moved to 
Microsoft Corp., where he became president and chief operating 
officer. The background to this move would be well worth 
investigating by the Justice Department. On Richard Belluzzo, see 
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/belluzzo/default.asp In any 
case, the free world, meaning the world outside Microsoft, is 
terrified that the patents that were handled responsibly by Silicon 
Graphics, might be used to corner the computer workstation and 
computer game markets.
    I am a Linux user, and I have been using Unix or Linux for over 
15 years. I prefer Linux to Microsoft software for practical, and 
not ideological reasons. There is a lot of valuable software that is 
available under Linux but not under Microsoft. This software may not 
have the wide market appeal of Microsoft software, but it is 
indispensable for technically oriented users.
    If Microsoft is able to retain its monopoly position, it is 
likely to do everything in its power to suppress Linux and other 
free software, and this would be a great loss to technically 
oriented users. For this reason, the Microsoft settlement needs to 
be renegotiated, so that free software should have a chance to 
survive.
    The main importance of free software is not that it is free; its 
importance is that it is written by expert programmers enthusiastic 
about contributing to the public good. This enthusiasm does not 
exist in programmers writing for a Microsoft platform. The Web site 
http://linuxtoday.com/ is a good one to follow concerning the alarm 
created in the free software community by Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    Sincerely yours,
    Attila Mate
    Professor of Mathematics
    Brooklyn College of CUNY
    USA Citizen
    Home address:
    77 West 15th Street, Apt. 5J
    New York, NY 10011-6832
    [email protected]
    http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/mate/
    Home phone: (212)929-0966



MTC-00017795

From: Brandon Booth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    Everything I've read concerning the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case leads me to believe it is badly flawed. I 
think this settement should be rejected and a stronger one put in 
place.
    Sincerely,
    Brandon Booth
    Silver Spring
    Maryland
    ``I don't see much sense in that,'' said Rabbit. 
``No,'' said Pooh humbly, ``there isn't. But there 
was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened 
to it along the way.''-Winnie the Pooh



MTC-00017796

From: Paul Hoehne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:11pm
Subject: Reasons to reject Microsoft settlement
    There are many technical reasons why the Microsoft settlement 
should be rejected and are detailed very well by in http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. My reasons for objection are based 
on the prior behavior of the defendant.
    Over the years Microsoft has shown that they intend to dominate 
the operating systems space on both the client and the server. They 
have shown from their prior behavior that will: Redefine terms to 
avoid compliance. If something doesn't fall under a strict 
interpretation of the terms of the settlement, then Microsoft will 
deem itself not bound to the settlement on that issue.
    Add non-standard extensions to standard protocols. If the 
industry-standard protocol is extended with proprietary, secret 
additions, then it no longer operates with non-Microsoft products. 
Use highly restrictive licensing. If something violates the license 
of a software vendor or service provider then non-Microsoft products 
can be excluded.
    Use legal channels as a delaying tactic. In an industry where 
dominance can be established in months, they can tie up an issue for 
years. Install intentionally incompatible software. Use a 
``free'' addition to the operating system that will 
disable, alter, or break a feature used by a competing product.
    Vapor-ware to prevent competing products from gaining market 
share. Microsoft has often promised software in order to prevent 
customers from adopting software from competitors, and delivered 
late or not at all. Even re-engineer their products. They can make 
programs that are not traditionally part of operating systems an 
integral part of Windows, thereby tying products to the OS.
    All this they can do to avoid having to comply with conduct 
remedies. I have no faith that the Department of Justice will be 
able to enforce the remedies stipulated in the settlement.
    It is sad to see the DOJ adopt a settlement that will be 
meaningless because it is unenforceable. It would be sad to see 
Microsoft continue to bully vendors,

[[Page 26466]]

constrain developers, and use their dominant position to drive 
competing products from the market. However, more than just 
``sad'', this situation is dangerous. In an age where 
Microsoft products are constantly being battered by security 
concerns, it would seem that healthy competition in the Operating 
Systems space would be vital to ensure that if one OS is highly 
vulnerable consumers have other choices available. Finally, when 
Microsoft avoids compliance, the credibility of the DOJ will suffer. 
Any law functions if the probability of meaningful enforcement is 
high. The defendant will avoid compliance and their behavior will 
diminish the effectiveness of anti-trust laws in general.
    Please do more to ensure that the US software industry is not 
subject to the whims of the defendant. Please re-work to the 
settlement to provide some real effective relief against Microsoft. 
Please ensure that the software industry in the US is open for 
innovation and not dominated by a single player who can use numerous 
tactics to drive competitors from the marketplace.
    Paul Hoehne
    Manager,
    T4 Consulting Group
    [email protected]



MTC-00017798

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to go on record as opposing the current settlement 
with Microsoft. The settlement fails to provide substantial 
protections against the tactics that Microsoft has employed in the 
past to unfairly compete with other companies. Most specifically, 
though not exclusively, the settlement does not prevent Microsoft 
from offering discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria 
like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This allows 
Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible operating 
systems to increase its market share in other areas.
    Mr. Stephen Wilson
    Hamilton, Ohio 45015
    Independent



MTC-00017799

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a BAD idea.



MTC-00017800

From: Steve Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:10pm
Subject: No to Microsoft settlement
    I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate 
reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior. Hundreds, even thousands, of small companies have ceased 
to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's business practices. 
Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Allowing one large company to control the internet and software 
made available to the masses will mean that development will be in 
the direction of what is good for that one company. With a diverse 
market, many more needs will be met and new ideas will abound.
    Steve Frank
    Salt Lake City, UT



MTC-00017801

From: Mike Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I object to the proposed settlement between the DoJ and 
Mirosoft. It does not sufficiently punish Microsoft and it does too 
little to keep them from continuing to use their monopoly to stifle 
fair competition. At a minimum, Microsoft should be required to 
publish and maintain full specifications for their application file 
formats, including Word, Excel and Powerpoint. These file formats 
form a major part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    Michael Thompson



MTC-00017802

From: Sean J. Vaughan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed anittrust settlement will not change Microsoft's 
behavior and will not be good for consumers or the software 
industry. I am a software professional with a Computer Engineering 
degree from the University of Washington. As a student, I interned 
with Microsoft. I've worked for an Internet startup and did some 
consulting work with Microsoft. I currently work at the University 
of Washington as a lead of a Software Engineering group.
    If the success of a company is to be measured by the rate of 
increase to shareholder value then Microsoft is the most successful 
company in civilization's history. They have achieved this *because* 
their highest and possibly only motivation is to increase 
shareholder value. In software, you get tremendous value when you 
have a wide base of code and are able to integrate your code in 
elegant ways. For example, in a web browser, you need (at least) a 
networking stack and a reasonable Graphical User Interface as a 
software foundation before you can proceed. The problem is that it 
is almost invariably cheaper for an operating system company 
(Microsoft) to own the software foundations then license this 
technology from another company. If the operating system company 
does not have some sort of monopoly on distribution this situation 
isn't necessarily a problem.
    The problem arises because Microsoft controls the distribution 
channels. The cost to consumers in terms of time and money of 
getting software that doesn't come with the computers they buy is 
high. In any new software market where Microsoft has a competitor, 
the only thing they need to do in order to take control and destroy 
the market is to put the software into their operating system. They 
then get to reap the future benefits of integration without the cost 
of competition.
    This hinders competition because if a competing software company 
has software that becomes popular then sooner or later Microsoft 
will choose to enter the market. After Microsoft enters the market, 
the only way for a company to provide shareholder value is to sell 
the company to Microsoft or move into a different market.
    The proposed settlement does very little to change this system.
    Good Luck!
    -Sean



MTC-00017803

From: Todd Marzolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern,
    I would like to add my voice to those in adamant opposition to 
the proposed Microsoft Settlement. As a student with a Bachelor's 
degree in Computer Science and about to complete a Master's Degree 
in Information Systems it is painfully clear to me the extent to 
which Microsoft has abused the public trust with its monopoly power. 
Please, for the sake of us all, reject this proposal in favor of a 
much stronger remedy.
    Today's information based society is particularly hard hit by 
Microsoft's crimes. The most cursory review of my day finds several 
obvious examples of the price that we all must pay for Microsoft's 
monopoly. For example; websites often display properly only under 
Microsoft Internet Explorer because they were created with Microsoft 
tools. My email accounts are regularly bombarded with spam from the 
latest Microsoft Outlook virus because there is no program which 
compete on the Microsoft platform despite Outlook's many security 
vulnerabilities and weaknesses. Cross platform collaboration with my 
peers at school is nearly impossible because Microsoft Office 
continues to incomparable file formats in order to lock in its 
customer base. When I recommend to my friends and family that they 
buy a prebuilt computer from a major hardware vendor I must explain 
that it can only be bought bundled with Microsoft Windows. These 
problems exist, not because of a lack of consumer demand for a 
solution, or lack of a willingness to pay, but because Microsoft 
does not allow it.
    The proposed settlement does not come close to recouping the 
illegal gains which Microsoft has made off American consumers much 
less come close to penalizing Microsoft for the illegal abuses. 
While it is doubtful that the true losses can ever be recovered from 
Microsoft any settlement The beginnings of a fair settlement should 
include the preeminent opening of all Windows and Office API's and 
file formats as well as a large cash payment to open source 
programming efforts which compete with Microsoft products. In this 
way Microsoft's ill gotten gains can be used for the public good.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Marzolf

[[Page 26467]]



MTC-00017804

From: Naglich, Don
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``solution'' is anything but a solution.
    Russell Pavlicek said it best: ``It is like the court 
ordering a convicted drug dealer to give out more free samples of 
heroin to underprivileged children to ensure that their poverty does 
not deprive them of the opportunity to become addicted.''
    Worse, Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language 
against not-for-profit companies. 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 (italics are mine) for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, ...'' This will kill SAMBA and other 
Open Source projects that use Microsoft calls. This is the only real 
competition to Microsoft, and they know it. How can the government 
protect the interests of the consumer and business users by giving 
Microsoft the right to set the criteria for what constitutes a 
business?
    THIS IS MADNESS.
    I, and others, implore you to rethink this setlement. At the 
very least, Micorsoft should be broken up. Let the Office Suite 
company compete and the Operating Systems company compete in the 
real world.
    Donald Naglich



MTC-00017805

From: Donald King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion as a citizen of these United States, the proposed 
settlement in the case of United States vs. Microsoft Corporation is 
not acceptable. Microsoft Corp. has an established history of 
violating the spirit (and occasionally the letter) of prior legal 
judgments. The proposed settlement leaves too many openings for 
Microsoft Corp. to maintain their monopoly power. In particular, the 
proposed settlement does little to correct the current situation 
with regard to the predatory pricing of Microsoft products.
    Microsoft should be prohibited from using its Non-Disclosure 
Agreements (NDAs) with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and 
corporate end users to enable it to price its software in a 
predatory manner. Specifically, Microsoft should be required to 
publish all contracts and licensing agreements which it enters to 
provide Microsoft software, and Microsoft should be prohibited from 
using any criteria except the number of licenses purchased to change 
the price of its software to a customer. The free market cannot be 
restored so long as Microsoft uses predatory pricing to lock OEMs 
and corporate end users in.
    Donald King, http://chronos.dyndns.org/
    12:47pm up 87 days, 16:42, 2 users, load average: 0.23, 0.17, 
0.11



MTC-00017806

From: Kurt Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I wanted to voice my concern that the current settlement under 
discussion is entirely too lenient on Microsoft. It does not deprive 
them of the profits of their illegal behavior, it does not lessen 
the barrier to entry for small competitors and it does not restore 
or encourage competition in the operating system market.
    I'd ask that the primary goal of the settlement be to rectify 
the current operating system market as quickly as possible, to bring 
more competition to bear on Microsoft. Please note that operating 
system should include any currently available operating system 
offering from Microsoft. I would recommend publishing the entirety 
of Windows XP, 2000 and CE source code, as well as all developmental 
code in Microsoft's possession, would most quickly level the playing 
field.
    Thank you.
    Kurt Watson
    [email protected]



MTC-00017807

From: Justin Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Justin Scott
10514 Woodley Ave.
Granada Hills, CA 91344
[email protected]
23 January 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing regarding the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit. As a professional in the computing field, I must 
say that I find the current settlement unacceptable, as do a 
majority of my colleagues I have spoken to about the issue. The 
settlement does little to change Microsoft's future actions, and 
what few proposed remedies exist, tend to remedy situations that no 
longer exist (due to Microsoft's monopolistic actions).
    This remedy does not penalize Microsoft for its past actions, 
and for all of the smaller competitors it has destroyednot out of 
having better products, but by leveraging its monopoly. Furthermore, 
the proposed settlement leaves many of the key provisions (opening 
of API's, which products fall under the settlement) up to Microsoft! 
This will allow them to simply continue their current actions, 
claiming that whatever they want to do is not covered by the 
settlement. Microsoft's actions have hurt, not helped, innovation in 
the computing field. At every turn, they have proved to be out for 
one goal only: the enlargement of Microsoft to control the entire 
industry. If another company proves competitive, they either buy 
them out, or destroy them by leveraging their monopoly (see: 
Netscape, the Caldera vs. Microsoft ruling, etc.) Microsoft must be 
kept under close government control and scrutiny until such a time 
that their monopolistic powers are diminished, and fair competition 
can once again rule the industry.
    Until a remedy is proposed that gives competition back to the 
industry, consumers will be hurt. Fair market competition is the 
cornerstone of our economy, giving companies a chance to survive on 
the merits and value of their products. Consumers must be protected 
from future abuses. I ask that the current settlement be abandoned, 
in favor of a truly forward-thinking settlement that frees the 
industry of Microsoft's overbearing shadow.
    I would propose that a fair remedy entail Microsoft being 
required to open up ALL proprietary file formats and structures to 
any competitor, of any size, specifically requesting them. As well, 
Microsoft should only be allowed to use its sizable collection of 
patents for defensive purposes, not as leverage to force companies 
to do Microsoft's bidding. Furthermore, Microsoft must be required 
to provide this information into the future, and it must extend to 
any products that Microsoft either has created, or will create.
    Microsoft's monopoly is so widespread that only sweeping actions 
will make a difference. For example, no sizable competitors to 
Microsoft Word exist as Word is a closed format, so to be 
compatible, you must use Word. There are no sizable competitors to 
Windows as specific, proprietary knowledge is closely guarded. 
Microsoft makes use of ``secret'' API calls in their OS 
and software applications that no other developer can use. If these 
problems are removed, and everyone is put back on a fair playing 
field, competition will bloom.
    Thank you for your time reading this.
    Sincerely,
    Justin Scott



MTC-00017808

From: Adam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly. There is nothing wrong with that. 
Microsoft is using that monopoly to strangle the rest of the 
computer industry. There is something wrong with that. I don't care 
about ``punishing'' Microsoft. I want to not have to think 
about Microsoft at all. Perhaps I should explain why.
    I am a software professional. I program software for a living. I 
am passionate about my enterprise. I am also a patriot. I have a 
Degree in Computer Science from a small technical school on the 
Banks of the Hudson River, The United States Military Academy at 
West Point. I was commisioned into the Infatry and Served with the 
25th Light Infantry Division in Hawaii. After my Army time, I 
returned to the civilan sector and began work as a programmer. My 
Army time not that far behind me, I was constantly reminded of 
things I could use my new skills to solve that would have helped in 
the military, everything froim planning for training to recording 
the army physical fitness test. But there was one reason why I wonld 
not have been able to do that.

[[Page 26468]]

Security. You see, I was working with Microsoft technology at the 
time. I was writing netwrok software for accessing an IBM based 
mainframe system. The clients were MS Windows machines. It became 
apparent that security went as far as the end of the OS/390 system. 
Once we were in the MS realm, we were on our own. The problem was, 
there was no access into the layers to ensure security. To 
summarize, building on a microsoft system, we were stuck with a 
single way to do things, and no options to do the things we needed 
to do.
    The settlement must ensure one thing. That no one company, 
person, or organization have a strangle hold on an industry that is 
vital to insterstate commerce on so many levels. The internet was a 
product of the US govenrment. To turn control over to one Company 
would be comparable to opening Yosemite National Park to quarrying. 
Microsoft currently owns the client end of internet connectivity by 
owning both the Desktop Operating System of Choice, and the two 
primary Interet Client Applications, the Internet Explorer Web 
Browser and Outlook Email Client. This puts every other business 
that is dependant on those tow things, dependant on one company.
    1) The settlemnent should provide for the splitting off of IE 
and Outlook from the main operating system.
    2) The Mozilla Browser should be installed by default. Mozilla 
is available as Free/Open Source software and will not cost 
Microsoft anything to install. Mozilla shall be inspected by a 
government agency to ensure it complies with open standards.
    3) The propoesd distribution of MS software to Schools shall be 
stopped. Any financial burden placed on MS should be in straight 
finacial terms, and not allows them to further their Monopoly.
    4) MS will be required to include the Java Run Time from Sun or 
from IBM, or from another 3rd party with it's operating system. Java 
is the most powerful cross platform application framework, and this 
will allow people to devlop code that will not tie them to the 
Microsoft platform.
    Very Respectfully,
    Adam Young



MTC-00017809

From: Marvin Bellamy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your handling of this case is horrible. You've won the case and 
because you're too lazy to finish the race, history's worst monopoly 
is going to walk with the weakest slap on the wrist you think you 
can get away with. Look at the damage they've done to the industry, 
legitimate smaller businesses, the software they've coerced/stolen, 
and make a firm stand! They should have been split up into 3 parts, 
*NOT* just two. And, you cowards have already backtracked out of 
that decision.
    Grow a pair or go home.



MTC-00017810

From: Brian Kirkbride
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I am strongly opposed to the current settlement agreement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. I am using this email to voice that 
opposition under the requirements of the Tunney Act. I strongly 
believe, as a member of the IT industry that deals with Microsoft 
products and the effect of their practices each day, that the most 
effective solution to this case and the underlying problem involves 
forcing Microsoft to extend the same development information to all 
companies as it currently does to it's internal application 
development teams.
    Sincerly,
    Brian Kirkbride
    [email protected]
    703-568-6330



MTC-00017811

From: Jason Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my discontent and even alarm at the 
proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. The proposed 
settlement does little to effectively end the strongarming of other 
by Microsoft. Their proposed settlement (with the States Attorneys 
General, I believe) of donating software ``for the 
children'' only goes to show the lack of regard they have for 
the process, and goes a long way toward revealing the corporate 
mentality of Microsoft: dominance at any cost. Their history is 
replete with examples of shulduggery (e.g., DR-DOS, exclusivity 
agreements with PC makers), their current actions show no signs of 
changing, and the proposed settlement does nothing but maintain the 
status quo. The terms are often vague, and rarely have enough teeth 
in them to affect an adequate solution to the problem. I would 
strongly urge, perhaps, a structural remedy, or, at the very least, 
a much stronger settlement that would offer MS fewer holes to slink 
through, as the consent decree proves they most certainly will, if 
given the chance. We have before us an historic opportunity to put 
to rest a huge market inequity. Let us stay the course and do this 
right. Return fair competition back to the computer industry, lest 
it spread to other markets (e.g., X-Box, WebTV, .Net/Passport/
Wallet). Make Microsoft a number of Baby Bills. Make them play fair.
    Thank you for your time.
    jason lee
    Sin is real, it doesn't feel. It always, only always, steals. 
Run to the cross
    the only joy that's real



MTC-00017812

From: Andy Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Please rethink your settlement with MS... Because of their 
prevalence in the market, they can force people to use only MS 
products for communication. Because they make the best products for 
using a fileformat (for instance a Microsoft Word document) which, 
while owned by them, is now a defacto standard for a lot of people. 
The problem is that Microsoft does NOT publish instructions on how 
to read those documents programatically, and therefore no one can 
complete effectively to make a competitive product.
    Even in cases where they do use an freely available standard in 
their products, they tamper with the implementation of that standard 
in their products so that, once again, only their products will work 
with it (see Kerberos auth in Win2k, and the use of LDAP in their 
ActiveDirectory product). It is my understanding that they are going 
to now use XML (another freely available standard) in future office 
products for their fileformats, but that those formats will once 
again be modified slightly so that nothing but MS products can read/
write them. There is nothing ``innovative'' about the 
results of this bending, other than as a way to lock in customers.
    In short-asking for money from them (much less the idea of 
them *donating* software-which is free for them to 
duplicate-to schools) isnt going to change any behaviors. 
Requiring use of published standards (as written) and allowing one 
and all (NOT just commercial entities) to inter operate with their 
products fairly is the only way for a bahavior change and a 
healthier computing industry.
    Thanks.
    Andy Lawrence
    MedVantx, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00017813

From: Dr. Dean Kohrs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement grossly 
fails to either redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the 
past, or inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the 
future. Furthermore, I believe this settlement is counter to the 
interests of the American public, deleterious to the American/Global 
economy, and inadequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of illegally causing injury, and 
sometimes the destruction, of other corporations. If a human being 
destroys another human being they are either placed in prison or 
given a death sentence. Why are corporations not treated the same? 
When the state gives corporations more rights and privileges then 
the people, the state ceases to server the people.
    I am astonished that the proposed settlement does nothing to 
correct Microsoft's previous actions. There is not one provision to 
correct or redress their previous abuses. The proposed settlement 
only prohibits future repetition of those abuses. If a corporation 
can commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as 
a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit 
those acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. 
That is not justice.

[[Page 26469]]

    Justice is breaking the company up. Justice is removing the 
Board of Directors responsible for these actions. Justice is opening 
up their API code. There are lots of possibilities, some great some 
small, but they must be just.
    Dr. Dean Kohrs
    809 Pine St.
    Clearwater Fl 33756



MTC-00017814

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I find the proposed final judgment for the Microsoft antitrust 
case to be unsatisfactory. The PFJ would allow Microsoft to engage 
in clearly anticompetitive behaviors without violating the 
settlement. For example, there is nothing in the PFJ to prevent 
Microsoft from programing artificial incompatibilities that would 
make it difficult or impossible to run Microsoft applications on 
non-Windows operating systems that are able to run software that was 
written for Windows operating systems. This has already been done in 
the past by Microsoft in the mid 1990's with Windows 3.1. That case 
was taken to court and was ruled to be anticompetitive behavior. So 
the proposed settlement does not restrict out examples of 
anticompetitive behavior that have already been used by Microsoft in 
the past. This is one of many problems with the PFJ that I can see 
but for the sake of brevity I will leave you with the thought that 
it would be better to take the extra time now to make sure that your 
solution will accomplish it's goals than to regret a hasty and 
ineffective settlement in the future. I implore you to reconsider 
the settlement now before it is too late. Thank you for your time 
and patience.
    Sincerely,
    Shane Yeargan
    Student
    U of North Texas



MTC-00017815

From: Jeff Rankine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement as it currently stands is 
completely inadequate as far as a remedy is concerned. The must 
troubling aspect of the remedy for myself as a software engineer, is 
the number of loopholes in the language referring to open API's. 
Microsoft is not under obligation to reveal interfaces if that 
interface is related to security. Unfortunately this allows 
Microsoft itself to determine what is or isn't a security interface, 
e.g. is disk access security related? What if the file has 
permissions attached? I think Microsoft should be forced to open all 
API's for their system, with oversight related to true security 
interfaces.
    -Jeff Rankine
    Senior Developer



MTC-00017816

From: Stan Mulder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Microsoft must sustain effective punishment for breaking the 
law. Not to do so would be wrong.
    When laws do not apply to the most powerful, it makes me lose 
faith in my government.
    Please do the right thing and impose an effective settlement 
that holds Microsoft accountable for its actions.
    Sincerely,
    Stan Mulder



MTC-00017817

From: Martin Moss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I am the President and Managing Partner of a small software 
company located in Chicago, IL. I am a vehement opponent of the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft abuses its 
size and monopoly power in every industry it touches; to the 
greatest extent within the desktop software and operating system 
markets. Their malicious, anti-competivite behavior destroys 
innovation within the market, and causes great risk (in the form of 
security problems with their operating system and network-based 
products) for their customers. Their corporate arrogance and ability 
to manipulate the complexity of this case to their advantage have 
already made a mockery of anti-trust enforcement in the 
US-more so if the case is settled in a way that does nothing 
to punish them for their misdeeds.
    Sincerely,
    Frederick Lowe
    President, Managing Partner
    Period Seven Communications, Inc.
    Chicago  Los Angeles



MTC-00017818

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the current settlement is too easy on microsoft. they should be 
forced to release their source code as free software, and pay a 
large fine, and be broken into two companies (one for OS, one for 
everything else).



MTC-00017819

From: Kevin Eye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an American citizen and would like to voice an opinion on 
the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust trial. I do bot 
believe the proposed settlement includes strong enough assurances 
that Microsoft will not continue to be the monopoly it has been 
found to be. Please consider this a vote against the proposed 
settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more 
favorable to Microsoft's competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    The United States is a successful nation because its free 
markets encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-
quality, low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from 
monopolists who gain so much power that they can destroy the 
competitive nature of the markets in which they participate. 
Microsoft has directly used its monopolies to repeatedly extend its 
domination into other markets. For example it used its monopoly of 
the operating system market to take over the web browser market. And 
it is currently attempting the same ``bundling'' 
techniques to try to dominate the ISP market with its MSN service, 
the digital media market with its Windows Media Player product, the 
instant messaging market with its Mircosoft Messenger product. To 
preserve the open market, and to promote high-quality, low-cost 
goods, strong actions must be taken against Microsoft to curtail the 
abuse of its monopoly, and eventually to reduce its market share to 
acceptable levels that once again allow healthy competition. I do 
not believe the proposed settlement adequately addresses these 
issues.
    Thank you for your time,
    Kevin Eye
    Williamsville, NY



MTC-00017820

From: Michael D. Kersey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft has 
displayed monopolistic business practices far longer than it is 
generally acknowledged. a story I am familiar with is a case in 
point:
    Circa 1980, I knew a Rice University professor who, with with 
several other professors, had a company called ``Clear Lake 
Software''. They had written specialized software (numerical 
processing) for the Apple MacIntosh computer and were successfully 
selling it as a software package. Microsoft expressed an interest in 
buying the product and sent lawyers to ``negotiate'' with 
the professors. There was no negotiation: the lawyers offered them a 
fixed dollar amount for all rights to the software. When the 
professors, who wanted a better price, asked what would happen if 
they didn't sell, the lawyers told them that Microsoft would 
establish a team of programmers and duplicate the specialized 
software within a short period, eliminating Clear Lake Software's 
product niche from the marketplace. The professors accepted the 
Microsoft offer, needless to say.
    If Microsoft acted this way with a company composed of a few 
Rice University professors, I cannot imagine how they would act 
against a more significant challenge in the marketplace. Microsoft 
must be dismantled.
    Sincerely,
    Michael D. Kersey



MTC-00017821

From: Tim Bray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Tim Bray. I am founder and CEO of a software company 
named Antarcti.ca Systems Inc. I have been in the software business 
continuously since 1981 and have co-founded another comany, Open

[[Page 26470]]

Text Corporation, that is now publicly listed (Nasdaq:OTEX). I have 
contributed an open-source software module named 
``Bonnie'' that is now a part of virtually every Linux 
distribution. Working under the auspices of the World Wide Web 
Consortium, I was one of the leaders in development of Extensible 
Markup Language (XML), now becoming a key internet standard, serving 
as co-editor of the specification of XML itself and one of its key 
supporting technologies. I currently serve as a member of the Web 
Corsortium's Technical Architecture Group, its architectural 
oversight committee for Web technologies as a whole.
    I have read the full text of the original judgement in the MS 
case, the full text of the appeal judgement, and the full text of 
the proposed settlement.
    I consider that the proposed settlement deficient in several 
respects. I limit comments to areas where my expertise and 
experience may lend them some standing:
    1. The definitions of terms such as ``API'' and 
``Middleware'' are insufficiently detailed and far-ranging 
and would allow the defendent considerable maneuvering room to mount 
legal defenses for continuing the behavior found illegal. Also it is 
troubling that the definition of ``Middleware'' is not 
particularly consistent with those in the original court's Findings 
of Fact.
    2. The settlement's attempt to force Microsoft to open up its 
APIs seems very unlikely to bring a stop to the practices in this 
area that were found illegal. In particular -the requirement 
for disclosure is much to late in the product development cycle, 
effectively allowing Microsoft to continue to use secrecy and 
manipulation of APIs as an anticompetitive weapon in the software 
industry. -the limitations of the use to be made of the API 
disclosures are too far-reaching and it is hard to understand what 
benefit they convey to anyone. -the undocumented binary file 
formats used by many Microsoft applications are in effect part of 
the API but are not covered by the definitions
    My decades of experience in the development and marketing of 
software products have led me to the opinion that the veiling and 
manipulation of APIs has been among the primary weapons used by 
Microsoft to extend their Windows monopoly into the domain of other 
unrelated software products. I would go so far as to predict that if 
this problem can be cleared up, market forces and the high level of 
creativity in the software business would probably suffice to bring 
a general halt to the illegal behavior without further court 
intervention.
    3. There is reason for strong doubt whether the ``Technical 
Committee'' will prove effective as an enforcement vehicle. 
Problems include: -the requirement that members not have been 
employed by MS or a competitor to MS in the past year doesn't work. 
First, it is very difficult to work for a technology company that 
doesn't compete with Microsoft in some area. Second, the only way to 
acquire the necessary insight into the business is to have worked 
for MS or a competitor.
    -The level of compensation is not specified-what 
motivation does the defendent have for providing a level of 
compensation necessary to attract people with the right 
qualifications? -the gag order on the TC members seems 
counter-productive. One of the most effective disincentives to 
continuing illegal behavior on the part of the defendent would be 
the threat of throwing the light of day on such practices.
    Cheers, Tim Bray, Founder, Antarcti.ca Systems
    +1-604-873-6100 (o) 
+1-604-785-8532 (m)
    http://antarcti.ca http://map.net



MTC-00017822

From: Brent Dill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the Microsoft Antitrust settlement is greivously 
inadequate to redress Microsoft's demonstrated prior harm to the 
industry and economy, and does nothing to insure against further 
harm. Working in the IT field for the past 11 years, I have seen 
first-hand what Microsoft's artificial market dominance has wrought: 
poor quality of product, with no better choices ever coming to 
market, and those choices which already existed in the market have 
long since been driven out of business.
    Microsoft now exists as the SOLE recourse for my industry, and 
it is woefully inadequate. A simple perusal of recent computer virus 
outbreaks demonstrates this-nearly every virus propogated in 
the past two years has done so as an exploit in Microsoft's 
operating systems and productivity tools. Worse, they are exploiting 
aspects of these tools that no reasonable piece of software should 
possess, and yet these softwares are not modified to remedy the 
threat.
    Microsoft is willfully negligent in its duty, as a monopoly, to 
protect the consumers from the negative and inescapable effects of 
its decisions. If Microsoft is to have a 90% share of the computer 
desktop market, then Microsoft should be held 90% responsible for 
any problems that develop as a result of computer desktop software 
flaws. A proper injunction, at the very least, should allow peer or 
experct judicial review of Microsoft's production methods [i.e., 
their source code]. If Microsoft is allowed to continue their 90% 
stranglehold on the market, they should be forced to provide the 
market with a higher quality of service than the market would 
otherwise receive from competition.
    Of course, the preferrable method would be to de-couple 
Microsoft's NT/XP kernel development from the rest of the 
corporation, allowing the resulting desktop/productivity development 
[the IE desktop/browser and the Office productivity suite] to be 
developed on multiple base operating system platforms. As both the 
Telephony industry and California's power grid have demonstrated, a 
government-regulated monopoly is seldom preferrable to a regulated 
free market.



MTC-00017823

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Department of Justice: (I Think)
    **The following text reflects my feeling and thinking about the 
MS antitrust trail**
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Antonio Ordorica
    IT Network Management
    [email protected]



MTC-00017824

From: Bill Biese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leaving a Monopoly intact as this settlement proposes is a 
remedy in name only. Just because we are not talking about a 
tangible product like steel or petroleum, as in other historical 
antitrust cases, doesn't mean the DOJ should cave in and not demand 
the correct TRUST busting remedy that is best for the consumer.
    Unbundle the Microsoft products and force Microsoft to offer 
them for sale separately and parts that have no competition sell 
that source code to highest bidders. For example force Microsoft to 
sell as an option a stripped down feature poor version of windows.
    My monopoly cable company must offer me a cheaper 13 channel 
only option not forcing every consumer to buy their whole package. 
Thus the consumer can then shop around for functions they need from 
other software companies.
    Unbundle the MS Office product also offering Word/ Excel/ Access 
etc separately saving the consumer the full spectrum cost.
    And the source code for Word and the Base OS since they have no 
real competition should be sold as stated above.
    Thanks,
    Bill Biese
    Systems Analyst/Programmer

[[Page 26471]]

    [email protected]
    1-920-497-1589 ext. 1207.



MTC-00017825

From: Todd Kofford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to comment on the Microsoft Settlement. The 
settlement as proposed has more legal loopholes that Swiss cheese 
blasted with a shotgun. Microsoft has historically displayed an 
unwillingness to adhere to any court-ordered consent decree, or to 
try and twist the actual intention of the decree to their own 
benefit. In other words, the only law that Microsoft respects is the 
Microsoft corporate agenda and culture, which is ``win at all 
costs as long as it is good for Microsoft''. Their executives 
during the anti-trust trial showed great disrespect and disdain for 
the district court and many of them blatantly lied under oath. This 
all goes to show that Microsoft cannot be trusted to ``do the 
right thing'' when it comes to playing by the rules (i.e., the 
LAW). That is why I am writing this letter.
    As a person who makes his living in the IT industry, I would 
LOVE to see some competition restored to the industry. Microsoft 
could easily compete on an even playing ground and the merits of the 
products they produce alone, but they simply will not. No consent 
decree or technology expert overlooking their actions will change 
this. A better solution must be found! It's kind of like the NBA 
Champion LA Lakers saying, ``OK, now we're the best! Next 
season we will start each game with a 25 point head start over our 
opponents, because we are the best and we can!''. Please think 
again before letting this settlement be finalized.
    Competition MUST be restored to the IT industry and Microsoft 
cannot be trusted to change on their own. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Kofford
    Todd Kofford
    710 N Michigan Cir
    Lawrence, KS 66044
    [email protected]



MTC-00017826

From: Milind Rao
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that this is a really bad idea. Microsoft has with its 
predatory practices hurt genuine competition. They virtually killed 
OS/2 and most application developers on Windows. Please ensure that 
this doesn't happen in the future.
    Regards
    Milind



MTC-00017827

From: James Jaworski
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    MICROSOFT IS GUILTY
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html)'' I also agree with the conclusion reached by the 
Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the emergence of 
competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is therefore not 
in the public interest. It should not be adopted without substantial 
revision to address these problems. I agree with Robert X. Cringely 
in his article ``He's Not in It for the Profit Steve Satchell 
for Microsoft Anti-Trust Compliance Committee!'' (on the web at 
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html)
    ...''I think he should get the position. With a background 
in computer hardware and software that dates back to one of the very 
first nodes on the Arpanet 30 years ago, Steve Satchell knows the 
technology. He has worked for several big computer companies, and 
even designed and built his own operating systems. And from his 
hundreds of published computer product reviews, he knows the 
commercial side of the industry. He is glib and confident, too, 
which might come in handy while attempting to keep Microsoft honest. 
Sometimes there is a distinct advantage to being the first to apply 
for a job, so I think Satch should be a shoo-in for one of those 
compliance gigs. And the boy looks mighty fine in a uniform.
    The job will be a challenge, that's for sure. The committee has 
the responsibility of settling small disputes and gathering the 
information needed to prosecute big ones. They are supposed to have 
access to ALL Microsoft source code, and their powers are sweeping. 
If it goes through, I only hope the court picks three tough but fair 
folks like Satch. ...''
    James Jaworski
    Instructional Lab Technician LRC-Instruction/Reference



MTC-00017828

From: Bryan Logan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the settlement with Microsoft. They need to be 
fined and truly punished for all the other companies they've hurt. 
Break them up into separate companies and also require them to 
release information (API's, protocols, file formats) of current MS 
products so other companies have a chance in the market.
    Thank you.



MTC-00017829

From: bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sirs,
    The Problem:
    Your proposed settlement with Microsoft does not address the 
problems for consumers and suppliers of IT products and services 
caused by Microsoft's illegal actions.
    In fact your proposed settlement is little more than a 
description of the current business practices of Microsoft 
Corporation. Requiring Microsoft to publish the APIs to the Windows 
platform has been Microsoft's policy for many years. So it fails the 
test of whether Microsoft is being punished for its past illegal 
actions, and fails to control Microsoft from pursuing similar 
strategies in the future. Publishing APIs simply enables other 
software companies to build products that run on Microsoft products 
thereby making those products more successful in the marketplace.
    The Solution:
    There is only one remedy that will work to empower consumers of 
technology, to restrain Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior in 
future, and to protect Microsoft's ability to continue to compete in 
the market. That is to require Microsoft to publish the source code 
to their products that are deemed to be monopolies, specifically the 
family of Windows operating systems.
    Microsoft can (and arguably should) retain full proprietary and 
exclusive rights to their software. Publishing the source code will 
allow others (including future department of Justice investigators) 
to inspect these products for evidence as to whether Microsoft has 
been using their absolute power over these products to extend their 
monopolies and reduce choice and raise prices to consumers.
    The old saying ``power corrupts, and absolute power 
corrupts absolutely'' is applicable in Microsoft's case. They 
are the only ones who know what goes on inside, and have the 
exclusive ability to arbitrarily change products that own monopoly 
positions in the market such as Windows. They will use, and have 
used, this power to force consumers to behave in ways that benefit 
Microsoft corporation at the expense of consumers and other 
suppliers in the market. The only way to ensure they do not continue 
to behave this way in the future is to hold them accountable. The 
only way to make them accountable is to enable inspection of the 
code that has monopoly control over the PC market.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions 
about this letter or the ideas it contains.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Young,
    CEO, Lulu, Inc., (919) 833-5858, or [email protected], 
www.lulu.com



MTC-00017830

From: Kent Florian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I would like to take a moment to express my concern with the 
proposed settlement terms in the Microsoft antitrust case. As a

[[Page 26472]]

computer professional who has worked in the field for over fifteen 
years, I have been witness to Microsoft's abuses of its market 
position countless times. I have also seen the government attempt to 
put an end to Microsoft's unfair practices in the past, to no avail.
    The current settlement agreement does nothing to address the 
harm that Microsoft has already caused in the marketplace, including 
companies that have folded due to uncompetitive practices and 
consumers that have been forced to pay for products that they are 
not using due to bundling agreements.
    Microsoft has proven over and over again that they are not a 
good corporate citizen, that they are perfectly capable of finding 
ways around any minor restictions placed in their path, and that 
they have no interest in obeying both the letter and the spirit of 
the law. Now is the time to hold Microsoft accountable for their 
abuses, not to merely shake a finger at them and tell them that they 
have misbehaved. If the proposed settlement agreement is accepted as 
it now stands, it will do nothing but reinforce the fact that it is 
perfectly acceptable for a monopolistic corporation to implement any 
abuses it sees fit, and even if they are caught, the punishment will 
be so minor that it will be an acceptable tradeoff. This option is 
just plain wrong.
    Thank you for your time,
    Kent Florian
    Director of Integration, Testing and Support
    TekNow, Inc
    Phoenix, AZ
    [email protected]



MTC-00017831

From: Stephen Hooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly. There is no doubt in my mind of that 
fact. It has not acted in the best interests of consumers. Again, I 
can say this with no doubt in my mind.
    The problem I have is this:everyone (except Microsoft) seems to 
agree on these two statements, yet the court and the states seem to 
be willing to let Microsoft continue the practices that have allowed 
it to become a monopoly, and that have allowed it to squash any 
viable competition it has.
    I am not a believer in retirbution. I don't think we should try 
to take revenge upon Microsoft for acting the way it did. What I do 
believe in, is letting other companies that would normally be 
crushed under Microsoft's weight have a chance to survive and bring 
their products to market.
    For this reason, I believe that Microsoft must have stronger 
regulations set to keep it in line. I do not like it, but Microsoft 
controls ninety percent of the worlds desktops. Without stronger 
regulations than those proposed, Microsoft will still be free to 
stifle competition by using this power base, and cause a long period 
of declining technical accomplishment.
    Microsoft does not invent anymore. It simply refines the labour 
of others, markets it as Microsoft's own, and undercuts the true 
pioneers of whatever field it chooses to enter.
    This would not be so horrible, if Microsoft were just going to 
let others live and die by the process of natural selection present 
in all business dealings, but the fact that they purposefully try to 
murder competition (i.e. Netscape, WordPerfect, OS/2, RealPlayer), 
and leave consumers with no choice but to use Microsoft products, 
makes it abundantly clear to me that the government must step in and 
level the playing field.
    For that reason, I believe that Microsoft should be forced in 
perpetuity to release to any one who wants it, information 
pertaining to file formats, protocols, or any API's it has, without 
any charge, and without any contractual obligations against using 
such information.
    Microsoft has taken care of killing off companies that would 
have given us choice in the matter of which tool to use for which 
job. By doing so, I believe they have taken on the responsibility of 
assuring us, that any tools that we need will be able to seemlessly 
operate in the environment they have now created, without the need 
to buy into using Microsofts tools.



MTC-00017832

From: Brian DeRosa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to voice that I feel the current proposed 
settlement is not adequate and equates to insufficient penalty 
against Microsoft. Microsoft as a company has used anti-competitive 
practices to grow into a monopoly, and is, by witnessing the terms 
of the proposed settlement, using more of its power to avoid 
justice. Please add my voice to the count *against* the proposed 
settlement under the Tunney Act.
    Thank you.
    Brian DeRosa
    DeRosa-Principal, Senior Consultant
    The Net Squad-http://www.thenetsquad.com
    Technology vision, strategy and development for net businesses
    630.929.6607 voice & fax, [email protected]



MTC-00017833

From: Jon Yarden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I OPPOSE the Microsoft settlement on the following grounds:
    1. Microsoft has a long history of UNDERMINING COMPETITION by 
either ``buying up'' and shelving competing products, or 
by threats of restriction of Windows licenses to PC manufacturers 
who use competative products.
    2. Microsoft has poured extensive money into false and 
misleading lobbying campaigns, including the use of DEAD PEOPLE as 
signatories in lobbying campaigns.
    3. Microsoft willfully and purposefully distorted and misled the 
Justice Department in regards to the rulings of Judge Jackson in the 
1990's and DELAYED final ruling until Netscape Communications and 
other Internet pioneers were destroyed by Microsofts marketing and 
bundling tactics.
    I personally find the behavior of Microsoft and it's chief 
officers appalling and DEMAND that my goverment act in the interests 
of it's CITIZENS and pushing Microsoft for it's arrogant, willful 
and purposeful monopolistic behavior. BREAK MICROSOFT UP!
    Jonathan Yarden, Senior System Administrator, BluegrassNet
    BluegrassNet
    520 South Fourth Street
    Suite 400
    Louisville, KY 40204
    502-589-4638



MTC-00017834

From: C. Vance Shannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Greetings,
    I am absolutely appalled at the continuing attack against 
Microsoft. It's disturbing that competitors airing false charges 
against Microsoft receive favorable treatment from the press and 
from many members of the United States Congress. It's even more 
disturbing that several states are continuing with their phone 
lawsuits against Microsoft.
    Microsoft has revolutionized the computer business. They have 
made it possible for the average citizen of this country, as well as 
multitudes around the world, to readily gain access to computers and 
the world-wide network that computers offer. I'm recall the days of 
``DOS'' and it's complexities, along with the difficulties 
of simply wandering around the computer world. Without Microsoft's 
contributions, the average citizen would never have become so 
computer literate; nor would we all enjoy the benefits of lower 
computer hardware and softward prices.
    It's time to call a halt to the attack on one of America's most 
successful businesses. There are many more issues of concern for the 
Department of Justice; and likewise state prosecutors. The on-going 
attack on Microsoft from private and governmental representatives is 
not only hurting Microsoft, but also hampering our country's 
economic recovery!
    Hopefully, the U.S. Department of Justice will bring an end to 
the frivolous Microsoft lawsuits, issue firm punishment for any 
wrong-doings actually committed by Microsoft, and let the company 
resume their efforts of bringing wondorous products to the American 
people and others around the globe.
    Sincerely,
    C. Vance Shannon,
    1290 San Pablo Ct
    Minden, Nevada
    775-267-9394
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017835

From: chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,

[[Page 26473]]

    I wish to object to the proposed final settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case, under the Tunney Act. While there are many 
points that merit reformation in the proposed final judgment, one 
that i find particularly odious is the definitions of several terms 
upon which information sharing will be based. specifically, defining 
``Microsoft Middleware'' as a handful of existing products 
rather than a generic category of software leaves open the 
possibility of simple renaming as an evasive manoever that would be 
within the letter but hardly the spirit of the law.
    I am extremely glad the DOJ is tackling this issue, but I think 
the proposed settlement needs much revision before becoming the 
final word on the matter.
    Thank you for your attention and ongoing vigilance.
    Chris Mccraw,
    2500 S York St #302
    Denver, CO 80210



MTC-00017836

From: Brandon Pearce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: To whom it may concern,
    To whom it may concern,
    I am quite concerned with the proposed settlement of the 
Antitrust case against Microsoft. After reaching the point having an 
established monopoly engaging in established anti-competitive 
practices, it seems that the proposed settlement fails to 
significantly curtail Microsoft's behaviors. It seems that there are 
many significant technical loopholes that will allow Microsoft to 
continue many of the practices that have led to the current 
situation.
    For example,
    1. The proposed settlement fails to require Microsoft to provide 
advance notice regarding technical information, while requiring 
middleware vendors to meet ``reasonable technical 
requirements'' seven months before new releases of Windows. How 
are the middleware vendors supposed to meet these requirements?
    2. Many APIs would not be properly documented, as they would not 
meet the overly narrow definition of API in the proposed settlement.
    3. The restrictions of use of the information of the APIs create 
unacceptable burden on ISVs developing for multiple operating 
systems.
    4. The formats of Microsoft Office documents remain 
undocumented-this is probably one of the single largest 
barrier to entry for a competing operating systems and for Office 
competitors.
    The list of problems with this settlement are extensive, and 
disturbing. If changes are not made to this settlment, it does not 
seem that there will be a significant change in the behavior of 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time,
    Brandon Pearce



MTC-00017837

From: Jimmy Rimmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The settlement offer is awful.
    Microsoft has built a massive Great Wall of Control around the 
software industry, and they guard the portcullis. To all who would 
pass through, these bandits put forth the following edict: No 
Innovation Shall Pass That Is Not Microsoft's. And all who pass 
through must pay a fee to the gang who runs it. The settlement offer 
maintains this Great Wall of Control. The settlement offer ensures 
that Microsoft alone decides what technology the people will be 
allowed to use. The settlement offer ensures that the software 
industry in America is not free.
    The leader of the people of the land made a stand against the 
bandits, and defeated it-yet rather than destroy the Great 
Wall of Control, assuring freedom and prosperity for his citizens, 
will he now offer a truce to these bandits? These thieves? These 
self-appointed censors of ideas? More is at stake here than the jobs 
of American citizens. America's ability to compete with the rest of 
the world in software is at stake; because if we do not allow our 
own citizens to innovate, some other country will. And such steps 
are clearly beginning in Europe and Japan.
    This settlement harms industry. This settlement harms 
individuals. This settlement harms America. We have already lost so 
many good ideas due to the Microsoft Bandits; how many more can we 
afford to lose?
    James B. Rimmer
    San Diego, California



MTC-00017838

From: Rob Alwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial.
    I feel that the current proposed settlement does not fully 
redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit 
their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Alwood
    Richmond, Virginia



MTC-00017839

From: Abraham Ingersoll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a sham. The 
proposed settlement does very little to make up for the wrongs 
Microsoft has committed in the past and will very probably be 
ineffective in fighting their abusive tendancies in the future.
    Thank you.
    Abraham Ingersoll
    P.O. Box 384
    Venice, CA 90294-0384
    310-450-7930



MTC-00017840

From: Bear Lehenbauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MS practices seek to hurt the company I currently work for. From 
sending out marketing materials to our clients that contain both 
false and ``misleading'' statements, to coding MS products 
to stop working with our products (DR-DOS, the NetWare Client, to 
name two), Microsoft attempts to crush us through devious means.
    Now that MS has been found to have acquired and misused 
``Monopoly Power'', shouldn't they suffer the penalty 
under law that other monopolies have been subject to? With the 
current settlement, we're essentially patting Microsoft on the back 
and ``forcing'' them to expand their market share in the 
educational arena. The settlement is weak. It's almost conspicuously 
set in their favor. The settlement must reduce them somehow from 
continuing as a monopoly.
    Thanks,
    Bear Lehenbauer
    System Test-Net Directory
    (801) 861-4657
    Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net services software. 
www.novell.com



MTC-00017841

From: Patrick Bowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement for the Microsoft anti-
trust case. It is not punishment, but merely a requirement that the 
company halt doing what it has been doing in the past. I have little 
doubt that, if an opportunity presents itself, Microsoft will find a 
loophole that allows it to continue with actions that are harmful to 
consumers, against the spirit of the settlement and anti-trust law, 
but sufficiently close to the letter of this settlement that it will 
be able, once again, to spend years in court while it ``cuts 
off the air supply'' to yet another market. It ultimately 
doesn't change anything about the marketplace and will not help 
consumers.
    Thank you,
    Patrick A. Bowman



MTC-00017842

From: Formanek, Chris

[[Page 26474]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Why should the public like this settlement? It does not change a 
single thing about how Microsoft will run their business and the 
consumers will be the ones to pay the price. Every time we have to 
go and spend $200-$250 for a OS that is full of bugs and 
problems because there is no choice of OS's for us, we lose.
    Here is a perfect example of why this settlement needs to be 
stiffer. I checked out the price for windows 98 and after over 2 yr. 
on the market it is still the same price as when it came out. Why is 
that, who does MS have to worry about concerning pricing. No one. 
They have bled every company out that could or would compete with 
them for years, it is time too stop this and allow for other 
company's to do their own thing and provide the consumers a choice 
in products at a fair price.
    Chris Formanek



MTC-00017843

From: Peter Szulik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Peter L Szulik



MTC-00017844

From: Mike Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I wish to state that I think the proposed settlement is 
fundamentally flawed in that it does not adequately address the 
behaviors and practices of Microsoft that led to it being found 
guilty of being an illegal monopoly.
    Thank you.
    Mike Owens
    [email protected]



MTC-00017845

From: Michael S. Tashbook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    This letter is in response to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antritrust case. Please add this message to the collection 
of comments on this settlement, as covered under the Tunney Act.
    As a citizen of the United States and a computer scientist (I am 
currently pursuing my doctorate at the University of Virginia), I 
strongly object to the proposed sanctions on Microsoft for its 
anticompetitive behaviors. They do not go nearly far enough in 
punishing Microsoft for its actions, and they completely ignore one 
of the main ways in which Microsoft used its power as an operating 
system vendor to unfairly gain an advantage in the application 
market. Even more disturbing is the fact that these proposed 
remedies have opened a significant loophole that Microsoft is 
already preparing to exploit to the fullest. To wit, section III(J) 
of the proposed settlement states, in part, that: ``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.'' In other words, Microsoft has no 
obligation to release their APIs to third parties. To a large 
extent, Microsoft was able to obtain its current anticompetitive 
position in the marketplace as a result of this behavior (keeping 
APIs secret). It should be obvious that Microsoft's in-house 
application developers had a significant advantage over third-party 
developers,due in no small part to the fact that the former had 
access to, and employed, undocumented API calls. If I have 
information that you do not, it should come as no surprise that my 
software will outperform yours. Requiring Microsoft to release all 
of its APIs to the developer community would provide everyone with 
equal footing, and would be a step towards correcting the current 
competitive imbalance.
    The section quoted above should also be of concern in light of 
the recently-publicized memo from Bill Gates to the employees of 
Microsoft. In his memo, Mr. Gates stated that Microsoft would begin 
to place a much higher priority on security measures in their 
products. This is a laudable goal (especially after the continuing 
saga of worms and viruses propagated by Microsoft's Outlook mail 
client), but it also provides an easy escape hatch for Microsoft. If 
Microsoft declares that the security of all of its code would be 
harmed by publishing API documentation (which is not inconceivable), 
then, under section III(J), they may keep all of their API 
documentation to themselves, perpetuating the circumstances 
(undocumented APIs) that produced the current situation.
    The proposed settlement does not go far enough; in particular, 
it allows Microsoft to continue their monopolistic, anti-competitive 
behavior. For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Michael S. Tashbook
    [email protected]



MTC-00017846

From: Caldwell, Jack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I believe that this proposed settlement is a bad idea for the 
Technology segment, in particular, those involved with computer 
operating systems, or any industry segment that competes with 
Microsoft. Evidence has clearly shown that MS will participate in 
activities that maintain their monopoly by stifling competition. 
This settlement is a disgrace to our country and its justice system.
    Jack Caldwell



MTC-00017847

From: peter allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose any settlement which is not structured so that all 
developers will have equal access to the underlying system. 
Splitting Microsoft in to two parts is a minimal way to create a 
situation in which the interface to the operating system will be 
consistently available to all.
    Peter Allen



MTC-00017848

From: Jay A. St. Pierre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    I would like to express my opinion that the proposed settlement 
does nothing to either punish Microsoft for their transgressions, 
nor prevent them from doing so again.
    The fundamental problem with Microsoft is that they sell the 
dominant desktop operating system AND the applications that run on 
top of it. The only way to create a even playing field for 
competitors is to expose the interface between the applications and 
the operating system. This would truly allow for competition among 
applications AND among operating systems, as competitors could 
create either applications or operating systems that met the 
published standard.
    In any event, just telling Microsoft that they were bad and they 
must not do it again is in no way going to either punish Microsoft, 
nor prevent a recurrance of their behavior.
    -Jay St. Pierre

[[Page 26475]]



MTC-00017849

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I recommend the wholesale rejection of the proposed terms of 
settlement, and the imposition of a structural remedy. I've been 
using Microsoft products since 1982 in various nonprofit, public-
interest, computer-related projects. My experience is that Microsoft 
completely ignored the public interest with respect to their 
versions of DOS. With the advent of Windows, Microsoft has worked 
with renewed energy against the public interest, in favor of 
maximizing its private profit.
    With DOS, through version 3.3 as late as 1990, Microsoft failed 
to include adequate hard-disk petitioning software, failed to 
include memory-optimization software, and failed to include full-
screen navigation software. Third parties provided this software, 
which ran on top of DOS. Microsoft soon realized that third-party 
software was able to provide a better computing experience. Rather 
than compete with a better product, Microsoft began moving in the 
direction of disallowing such software. A case in point was the DR 
DOS situation.
    Then with the advent of Windows, Microsoft began offering 
competing versions of all popular desktop applications. These 
included spread sheets, word processors, accounting programs, and 
database programs. Windows was much more exclusionary in terms of 
the ability of third-party software houses to compete with Microsoft 
products. Microsoft essentially controlled the interface (the API, 
or Application Programming Interface) to Windows, and could use this 
as a club to insure that competing products were inferior, or even 
nearly impossible to develop.
    The Internet was first recognized by Microsoft as a significant 
development only in 1995. Microsoft then moved in on Netscape with 
their own knock-off browser, in order to insure that Netscape would 
be unable to evolve their own APIs for the Internet. According to my 
logs, Netscape now has about ten pecent of the browser market, while 
Microsoft has 85 percent. It was the other way around just about 
four or five years ago. Microsoft has proven again and again that 
they have nothing but contempt for the public interest. A structural 
remedy is the only remedy that will address this attitude at the 
level that it needs to be addressed.
    Regards,
    Daniel Brandt,
    PIR founder and president
    Public Information Research, PO Box 680635, San Antonio TX 
78268-0635
    Tel:210-509-3160 Fax:210-509-3161 
Nonprofit publisher of NameBase
    http://www.namebase.org/ [email protected]



MTC-00017850

From: E THEJUDGE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:17pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    January 8, 2001
    8671 Clarance Center Road
    Clarence Center, NY 14032
    Judge;
    Thank you for taking the time to review this note. I write in 
opposition to the proposed deal that the department of justice has 
completed with Microsoft. The agreement seems to me to be flawed in 
many, many ways ? including the fact that Microsoft is hardly 
penalized at all for many years of predatory behavior. This cannot 
be a good signal for other potential monopolists. I would ask that 
you ensure that this glaring weakness is addressed.
    Thank you.
    Katherine Johnson



MTC-00017851

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    I would like to voice my opinion that the proposed settlement 
for the Microsoft antitrust trial does not go nearly far enough in 
correcting the abuses committed by Microsoft. In fact, I think that 
it would only serve to encourage future similar behaviour by 
allowing Microsoft to keep gains that dwarf any 
``penalty'' imposed. I also find it very disconcerting 
that a proposed penalty would have very possible effect of assisting 
Microsoft against competitors in new areas. Thank you for your work 
in helping to ensure that large companies cannot use their weight in 
illegal ways to crush smaller competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen R. Hulcher
    [email protected]



MTC-00017852

From: Jeremy Radlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) is not in the public interest 
because it is crucial that Microsoft's document formats (such as the 
format of Microsoft Office documents) be open and unencumbered by 
patents, enabling others to freely create competing software which 
operates on documents in those formats. The PFJ would allow 
Microsoft to keep its document formats secret and to protect them 
with patents, creating an enormous Barrier to Entry for competing 
applications.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Radlow
    96 Cedar Street
    Bangor, Maine 04401



MTC-00017853

From: Jim Hines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a computer professional and have been so for 13 years. I am 
totally againest the settlement that has been proposed by the DOJ 
and feel it is nothing more than a slap on the hand to Microsoft. 
Please do not let Microsoft get away with this crap settlement! They 
must pay for their actions or they will keep doing them over and 
over again.
    Thanks,
    Jim Hines
    IT Mgr, WDTV NewsChannel 5
    Your Hometown News
    TEL:304.848.5000
    FAX:[email protected]
    
    
    WDTV NewsChannel 5 is a CBS Affiliate



MTC-00017854

From: Nicholas Robbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement against Microsoft is horrendously 
flawed. It does not really solve anything, it only allows Microsoft 
to continue with unlawful practices. Everyone is hurt by a Monopoly, 
take me, for instance. I don't like to use Windows, I down right 
despise it. I still have it installed. I have to. Nothing is 
released on my operating system of choice. I can do almost 
everything I need to, but there are those few applications that I 
cannot use, after all, why would someone release a niche application 
for an OS with only %2 desktop share? So, here I am, booting into 
Windows for my one application, that was $300 not very well spent. 
Although it does allow me to remember what a crashing computer looks 
like. So now the real problem. I utterly fail to understand how our 
legal system can allow this to occur. I was brought up believing 
that our legal system is the greatest in the world, how no other 
system is as just as the mighty U.S.. I personally don't care if the 
trial takes another 3 years, so long as the right thing is done.
    Nicholas Robbins



MTC-00017855

From: Nitin Borwankar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is bad for competition in marketplace
    To USDOJ,
    I sincerely feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is 
not good for long term competition in the software marketplace as it 
a) does not effectively address past anti-competitive behavior in 
its proposed form, essentially allowing it to continue b) 
additionally promotes Microsoft market expansion in segments that 
currently have effective competition i.e. the education segment 
essentially further promoting Microsoft dominance in the 
marketplace.
    Any remedy for criminal behavior needs also to address return of 
the profits due to criminal activity. While it will be difficult to 
calculate this amount accurately, OS monopoly leverages all of 
Microsofts profits so a substantial fraction of current Microsoft 
cash reserves e.g. 10-20 billion should not be considered 
excessive.
    Taxes levied on cigarettes are used to promote anti-smoking 
advertisements. Similarly this money should go to directly 
strengthen market influence of competitive forces via such means as 
a) Informational advertisement about the negative effects of 
Microsoft's monopolistic behavior b) Strong support of Open Source 
efforts by direct grants to such projects as a. The worldwide

[[Page 26476]]

Linux community b. The Apache foundation c. Project JXTA d. The Wine 
project c) Promotion of alternative Office suites such as Hancom 
Office and Star Office d) Grants to overseas organizations that 
promote the use of computers in education, specifically to enable 
the use of Linux in schools, colleges and universities in the Third 
World.
    Nitin Borwankar,
    President and CEO
    Borwankar Research Inc.
    [email protected]
    510-872-7066
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017856

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don't do it! This corporation forced me to buy a license for 
their software, even though I did not want it and do not use it. 
(Laptop: when I notified the manufacturer that I did not accept the 
End User License Argreement, I was told my only option was to return 
the hardware.) This kind of market domination and coercion of 
consumers will not be rectified by the Settlement as it stands. 
Please reconsider.
    Yours,
    * James (Andy) Stroble, Ph.D.
    * Honolulu, HI *
    * http://www2.hawaii.edu/?stroble/ *
    ``I have long feared that my sins would return to visit me, 
and the cost is more than I can bear.''
    The Patriot



MTC-00017857

From: Vic Parekh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. 
Microsoft's activities, which have been ruled illegal, have led to a 
decrease in competition. The field of Operating Systems has 
suffered. Systems like BeOS have not had a fair chance of 
succeeding. I am a US Citizen, and therefore please consider my 
comments when making your decision.
    Thanks,
    Vic Parekh
    1616 N Fuller Ave Apt 230
    Los Angeles, CA 90046
    Vic Parekh  [email protected] 
 213-944-2340
    Hello, I am a leading provider of repurposed leading-edge 
vortals(c) and orchestrating bleeding-edge relationships(c). I also 
allow you to click(c) and shop(c) on the Internet(c). If you would 
like some more information(c), please visit vicparekh.com(c) and 
buy(c) something today. Thank You(c)



MTC-00017858

From: David Graser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You present settlement is a joke. If this is creating an even 
playing field, then I am alien from Mars.
    There is no competition. Microsoft dictates whatever price they 
want to sell their operating systems for. The upgrades are 
continually overpriced and usually create more problems than they 
solve. If OEM's do anything that displeases Microsoft, they are 
threatened with some strong arm tactics. How is this possible? No 
competition, no threat! If others had access to secret or poorly 
documented Win32 API's, others could port these API's to other 
operating systems enabling these systems to execute Windows 
programs. Thus, one would not need Windows to operate a Windows 
programs and this would give others an opportunity to check out and 
use possibly a better operating system. Show you are an American and 
want good honest competition. Don't accept the settlement as it is 
right now.
    Regards,
    David Graser
    Port Neches, TX
    Chemical Plant Operator



MTC-00017859

From: Jack and Joan Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr Ashcroft,
    Attached is a letter asking to stop further action against 
Microsoft.
    Jack Crawford
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    @-++-P-yd
15239 Barrett Road
Mount Vernon, Washington 98273
January 11, 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 feel the settlement reached in 
November is reasonable, and I strongly favor an end to litigation 
against Microsoft.
    This settlement contains provisions that will make it easier for 
companies to compete with Microsoft. Microsoft has pledged to share 
more information with other companies and create more opportunities 
for them. This settlement will allow Microsoft the opportunity to 
finally devote 100% of their resources to doing what they do 
best-designing innovative software, rather than litigation.
    I sincerely hope there will be no further action against 
Microsoft at the federal level. Thank you for your attention to this 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Crawford



MTC-00017860

From: Melissa Heischberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writting in response to the Proposed Microsoft Settlement, 
in accordance with the Tunney Act on public commentary. I am 
strongly opposed to the settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Trial 
in its current form. This provisions of this settlement do not 
adequately restrict Microsoft from future misbehavior, nor does the 
settlement provide sufficient penalty for the profit and marketshare 
that Microsoft has gained in the past by use of the anti-competative 
practices for which they were brought to trial. Specifically, as a 
software developer myself, I find that the articles concerning 
middleware development and the release of applicable documentation 
to middleware developers do not outline what I would cosider to be 
reasonable timetables and restrictions to allow competing middleware 
developers to create and test software that is designed for 
compatability with Micosoft Operating Systems. Also, I am extremely 
concerned by the apparent lack of penalty being imposed on Microsoft 
for their past abusive business practices. I strongly feel that this 
settlement lacks an aspect of justice. While the court's desire to 
negotiate a settlement is laudable, I feel that the current proposal 
does disservice to those menbers of the american public who daily 
use, or develope for, Microsoft products.
    Sincerely,
    Melissa M. Heischberg
    Software Developer
    Crystal Lake, IL



MTC-00017861

From: DC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Preface:
    The US Constitution makes it very clear that copyrights are not 
an inherent right, but merely a short term incentive designed to 
bring information into the public domain after a limited monopoly on 
copying is granted to the makers of a creative work.
    Suggested Punishment:
    It should be self evident that Microsoft has violated this 
trust, and as punishment the government should no longer be required 
to enforce their copyright holdings on the Windows NT/95,98 
operating systems, Internet Explorer, and possibly MS Word.
    This would be a very simple, but fair and effective punishment 
that would be self enforcing, require no oversight, and would 
provide intense motivation for this to never happen again.
    Sincerely,
    David Christy
    [email protected]



MTC-00017862

From: Furnish, Trever G
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to state for the record that I believe the existing 
Microsoft settlement proposal is inadequate in its remedies against 
Microsoft, and that I share in the sentiments listed in Dan Kegel's 
comments, which can be found on the following web page:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Trever Furnish, tgfurnish at herff-jones.com, 317.329.3397 x3519
    Unix Administrator, Herff-Jones, Inc.



MTC-00017863

From: shirkbt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26477]]

    I don't have much time in between classes and trying to keep up 
with life in general, but this is basically in line with my beliefs 
about the Microsoft settlement.
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Brian Shirk
    2730 Braithwood rd
    Atlanta, GA 30345



MTC-00017864

From: Ben Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings!
    I'm an independent software developer, and I'm concerned that 
the proposed remedies for the unlawful and unethical actions of 
Microsoft will no be enough to put the computing filed back on a 
level playing field. Microsoft has systematically destroyed any 
competition to it's desktop dominance-and has hurt my 
customers due to the lack of a viable alternative due to their 
illegal actions. Please be a bit stronger in the defense of us 
consumers and those hurt by Microsoft. Thanks for your time. Pease 
feel free to contact me at any time, and for any reason.
    Yours,
    Ben Johnson
    5025 156th Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98006-3629
    425 785 0802



MTC-00017865

From: Robt. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:21pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Whatever you do, don't let MicroSoft settle, don't let them 
``pay'' with software liscences. Make them pay cash or pay 
for competing operating systems. Thank you.



MTC-00017866

From: Jason E Seegert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Having been a user of micro-computers for well over 12 years, 
and having been acquainted with many different operating systems, 
web browsers, and other various software packages, I would 
officially like to submit my comments on the Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Settlement. As excerpted from the Court of Appeals Ruling ``a 
remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek to ``unfetter a 
market from anti competitive conduct'', to ``terminate the 
illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future'' (section V.D., p. 
99).''
    Many in the public realm, including the Attorney General seem to 
agree that any settlement must seek to remedy the anti-competitive 
situation which has gone on for far too long with the Microsoft 
Corporation. I happen to fully agree with this statement, yet I have 
some reservations about the Proposed Final Judgement which has been 
presented the public for comment.
    First, much of the wording (incl. definitions and provisions) in 
the Proposed Final Judgement is misleading to consumers, and in 
certain cases is overly narrow. This provides many loopholes by 
which Microsoft can, and will work around in order to maintain and 
strengthen further their monopoly. Secondly, the PFJ does not 
attempt to remedy the anti-competitive licence terms which Microsoft 
currently includes with it's software. By not providing an 
restrictions on anti-competitive licence terms which prohibit the 
entry of open-source applications for Windows, and which do not 
allowed Windows applications to be run on open-source operating 
systems. Third, many of the requirements of the PFJ will not restore 
competition to the included software markets. This issue deals with 
the requirements of releasing the APIs to other vendors so that 
competing products could not enter the market in time to compete 
with Microsoft's counterparts (i.e. Internet Explorer, Office, Media 
Player, etc.). Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to 
release via MSDN or similar means the documentation for the APIs 
used by Microsoft Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; 
release would be required at the time of the final beta test of the 
covered middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 
150,000 beta testers. But this information would almost certainly 
not be released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt 
their products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which 
states that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to 
meet unspecified technical requirements seven months before the 
final beta test of a new version of Windows.
    For the reasons outlined above, I strongly believe that new, 
stronger, and yes....even HARSH language needs to be drafted to 
truly make this PFJ meet the requirements outlined by the Court of 
Appeals. Many of the states involved in the settlement have proposed 
some more harsh pentalties, and many of them are not only viable, 
but desirable in order to return competition to the market. It is my 
sincere hope that Microsoft will not be allowed to wield its 
largesse and power over the DOJ. We need to send a strong message to 
Microsoft to let them know, that we as consumers and business do not 
agree with their practices, and that we feel they should be punished 
severely for it.
    Most Sincerely,
    Jason E Seegert



MTC-00017867

From: Matthew Rees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge you to reject the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I agree with every word of 
dissent outlined in Dan Kegel's letter (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html) though I could not myself so thoroughly document the 
many problems associated with the proposed settlement.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew C. Rees
    15 Greenbrier Road
    Greenville, RI 02828



MTC-00017868

From: Naglich, Don
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Th settlement is a horrible idea. It hurts all consumers and 
business users. It will kill Apple and the Open source movement



MTC-00017869

From: Gautam Golwala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ is a very 
bad idea. The lack of penalty for past misdeeds by Microsoft is 
going to make it look like they are getting away without paying a 
price. In the eyes of the common person, this just looks like the 
ability of a big corporation being able to buy its way out of 
trouble with the help of money and political connections. Please do 
not let the common person lose faith in the justice system.
    Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    Gautam Golwala



MTC-00017870

From: Rory Stark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed the Microsoft anti-trust case closely. I was 
pleased to see the Justice Department and Microsoft come to a 
settlement. My reading of the settlement indicates that it does in 
fact address the actual abuses upheld by the appellate court. As a 
consumer I feel well served by the settlement.
    I strongly encourage you to uphold the settlement and put an end 
to at least this part of the litigation.
    Randall Stark
    8411 NE 20th Street
    Clyde Hill, WA 98004

[[Page 26478]]



MTC-00017871

From: Ness, Zoltan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft Settlement. It is not a 
true penalty for Microsoft. Giving away software that costs 
Microsoft little beyond distribution, yet is counted at full price, 
reduces the penalty to literally a penny or less per dollar. Each 
copy costs less than one dollar to distribute, but claimed worth is 
hundreds of dollars for some of the software.
    It also serves to further Microsoft's monopoly into an industry 
(education) which has traditionally had a healthy, competitive mix 
of personal computer alternatives (Apple, for example).
    Rather than a having to live with the legal consequences of it's 
anticompetitive behavior, Microsoft would be given a less than token 
penalty AND given a DOJ mandated reason to extend it's monopoly into 
one of the few remaining strongholds of desktop OS competition.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Zoltan Ness



MTC-00017872

From: Jim Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have given this a lot of thought and I feel that your proposed 
settlement does NOT go far enough to protect citizens from monopoly 
abuse by Microsoft.
    It it is common saying among Independent Software Vendors that 
developing for the Microsoft market is like ``picking up dimes 
in front of a steamroller''-you can make some money for a 
while, but if you try to pick up too many coins, Microsoft will 
flatten you.
    I am VP of product development of a software product company 
that is a current Microsoft Partner (so please keep my identity 
confidential if possible), I was once a Microsoft Certified 
Solutions Developer, and I am fairly seasoned in the software dev 
business having written and sold commercial business software 
applications for over 18 years for Mainframe, DOS, Mac and all 
flavors of Windows-3x,9x NT,2000. XP. I sat in a meeting in 
Redmond in 1998 where Bill Gates stated he believed it was his goal 
for Microsoft to someday own virtually the entire software 
marketplace in the US, vertically and horizontally. At that point 
every other software vendor would be just a custom integrator of 
Microsoft licensed components. (I signed a Non-disclosure before the 
meeting but I assume that talking to the DOJ concerning possible 
crimes is a protected exception).
    I dont think you will be able to successfully monitor and 
enforce on-going compliance by Microsoft, nor do I favor splitting 
off the Operating Systems group in to a separate company.
    I propose that you break up Microsoft into multiple fully 
competiting ``Babysoft'' companies who start out with the 
all current Microsoft products. Consumers would instantly have 
something they dont have now- choice ( as well as compatiblity 
with their existing apps). Each ``Babysoft'' would then 
need to work hard to innovate and compete with the other 
``Babysofts'' on price and features in order to prosper.
    Thanks for your time.
    Jim Martin
    President, Inquisite.



MTC-00017873

From: Nick Betcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ
    I believe that from everything I've read, heard, and seen that 
Microsoft winning this one will send innovative companies, people, 
and ideas down the drain. There is no excuse for a monopoly, and 
this is the worst of them all. I only say as much as I do because I 
speak the true facts and no bloat. This is real, we have one chance, 
so lets not blow it.
    Nick Betcher



MTC-00017874

From: Paul Sumedinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Strong remedies are required to mitigate the strong findings of 
fault upheld by the courts.
    Simple remedies are likely to appear as a political buyout. 
Enough damage has been set upon users though corporate neglect. The 
security problems resulting from the products forced upon users by 
unfair licensing agreements is world laughable.
    Many years ago AT&T and IBM were required to submit to 
strong remedies. No less remedy should be prescribed in this 
settlement.
    Paul Sumedinger
    PO Box 208
    Towner, ND 58788



MTC-00017875

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I want to add my voice to those who affirm 
that the settlement in the Microsoft case is woefully inadequate. 
The settlement will not create an environment that will prevent 
Microsoft from using their monopoly to stifle competition in the 
future, as they clearly have in the past. Unless the Microsoft 
applications are constrained to work under the same conditions as 
non-Microsoft apps (that is, by only using publicly documented APIs 
to the Windows (NT, XP, CE, and future OSs), Microsoft will have an 
unfair advantage. The most maintainable solution would be to break 
MS up into two companies, an OS company and an Apps 
company-that would ensure a level playing field.
    If that is not going to be the solution, it will take on-going 
Federal vigilance to make sure Microsoft is not succumbing to the 
temptation to use the inherit advantages of making both the roads 
(OS) and most of the vehicles (Apps) that use the roads to its 
advantage, and prevent other companies from building vehicles that 
work as well or better than MS's.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Morse



MTC-00017876

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed MS settlement is not only a bad idea, but will not 
have ANY effect on the behavior that it is attempting to stop. 
Please let the PEOPLE of the world have a choice. The Tunney Act is 
providing a way for folks like myself to speak out about this issue. 
Listen to the people.
    William Alewine
    Systems Administrator
    Grande Communications
    San Marcos, Texas



MTC-00017877

From: Jonathan Dick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    As a user of computer software, I strongly oppose the proposed 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. The settlement prohibits 
many objectionable practices by Microsoft, but defines many of these 
so narrowly that it will be easy for Microsoft to obey the letter of 
the settlement while consciously violating its spirit.
    In the past, Microsoft has shown itself to be incapable of 
voluntarily following court-imposed settlements. Thus, a special 
master must be appointed to oversee and enforce Microsoft's 
compliance with any proposed settlement.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
    Jonathan Dick, PhD
    Fresno Pacific University
    Division of Natural Science
    1717 S. Chestnut Ave.
    Fresno, CA 93702
    [email protected]
    ph 559.453.2095
    fax 559.453.2007



MTC-00017878

From: Wes Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello:
    I have read about the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-
trust case, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors.
    I do not feel the proposed settlement adequately prevents 
Microsoft from utilizing its monopoly status in unfair and illegal 
ways in the future, nor does it adequately address the gains 
Microsoft has received by abusing is monopoly status in the past.
    Without appropriate penalties for its previous behavior, 
Microsoft will not be discouraged from acting similarly in the 
future. Likewise, without appropriate measures taken to prevent 
continuing

[[Page 26479]]

monopolistic behavior, Microsoft will not be prevented from acting 
similarly in the future.
    So, in effect, nothing changes, and the proposed settlement 
amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist to Microsoft. The 
damages Microsoft has caused to the software industry, the computer 
industry as a whole, and to everyone and every business who uses 
computers in some fashion in their daily activities is incalculable.
    For example: Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Outlook are the two 
primary weaknesses in the spread of computer viruses. It is 
estimated that costs of recovering from and dealing with two 
viruses: Nimda and Code Red just in the last year were nearly $1 
billion.
    That is a very significant burden to the US and even the world 
economy. And represents only two of the tens of thousands of viruses 
that affect Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Outlook.
    But it doesn't even begin to estimate the losses caused by the 
monopolistic destruction or assimilation of companies like Netscape 
and countless others who developed competitive software to Microsoft 
products. Innovation is what fuels the US technology marketplace and 
Microsoft acts counter to innovation in the marketplace. In fact 
Microsoft has never created an innovative product in its entire 
existence. Instead it simply copies the products and/or features of 
its competitors and then uses its monopoly powers to ram its 
products down the throats of consumers and drive its competition out 
of the marketplace.
    Choice is the power consumers must have in order to keep 
innovation alive. Without choice, without the freedom to choose the 
products they want, consumers are trapped in the Microsoft monopoly.
    I ask you to abandon the currently proposed settlement and think 
about what it is that would return the marketplace to a fair and 
competitive state now, and in the future.
    Specifically I would like to recommend:
    (1) Microsoft be split into (at least) three separate and 
completely independent corporations: Operating Systems / 
Applications / Other Products
    (2) Microsoft be forced to open up the COMPLETE source code to 
all windows versions, with a process for review such that industry 
experts can inform the DOJ when they find omissions or errors in the 
source code released by Microsoft and have these issues resolved by 
the DOJ through forced compliance and additional fines for each 
infraction such as errors or omissions in the source code released.
    (3) Microsoft be forced to release the specifications for all 
file formats used by Microsoft products and be prevented from using 
file formats which are not openly documented for a period of at 
least 10 years (or a period corresponding to the time Microsoft has 
been a monopoly, whichever is longer.)
    (4) Individual policy makers within the company should be held 
accountable for further monopolistic actions. Hiding behind a 
corporate veil makes it easy for the administration to direct 
Microsoft to further abuse their monopoly. But being held personally 
responsible for directing the company or its employees to act 
against the law would go further than any penalties faced by the 
corporation as a whole towards curtailing further abuse of the 
Microsoft monopoly.
    A new and more fair settlement also needs to address the damages 
caused by Microsoft to its competitors and to its customers. 
Specifically, I would like to recommend:
    (1) Severe fines for abuse of its monopoly position
    (2) Settlement fines paid to companies like Netscape, Sun, and 
others who have been unfairly damaged by Microsoft in the past 
Microsoft has proven themselves to be abusers of their monopoly 
position. And they've shown over and over again their eagerness to 
act unfairly or unethically in an effort to strengthen their 
monopoly even further. Only the strongest of actions.can even have a 
hope of restoring the marketplace to a fair and competitive 
environment. Only the strongest of actions can even start to undo 
the wrongs caused by the monopolistic abuses of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Weston Henry
    1535 27th Ave. S, #201
    Fargo, ND 58103
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017879

From: Joe Fish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir / Madam:
    Regarding the subject settlement, please be advised that there a 
large number of voting citizens who consider the settlement as 
currently proposed to be wholly unpalatable, and that, if it is 
implemented, we plan to express our displeasure with our votes in 
the rapidly approaching congressional elections.
    As one employed in the IT field, I have seen the way in which 
the unlawful, anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's business 
practices have harmed nearly everyone in the community in some way, 
from individual consumers of electronics products, up to the 
behemoth-sized companies that directly compete with Microsoft for 
some markets (Sun, IBM, AOL-Time Warner, etc.) Unfortunately, any 
settlement you propose comes too late to the party. Individuals have 
lost jobs, products have disappeared from consumer's lists of 
choices while the lawyers in Washington have wrangled. As this is 
unquestionably the case, you at the DOJ have the responsbility to at 
least ATTEMPT to ensure that Microsoft will not be allowed to use 
the same unlawful business practices on anyone they deem unfit to 
make profits in the IT business.
    The settlement as currently structured does, in my view, little 
to nothing to curtail Microsoft's previous behavior, except possibly 
as it relates to competing Internet Browsing technologies, of which 
there are now none, thanks to Microsoft. While I feel that the IDEA 
of a 3-person panel dedicated to reviewing Microsoft actions is a 
good one, they need a much broader charter of powers and clearer 
definition of their ability to implement corrective measures than I 
was able to discern from the proposed settlement agreement. In my 
view, the terms, details, and especially EXCEPTIONS listed in the 
agreement appear to have been drafted by Microsoft's bevy of 
lawyers, working closely in concert with Waggoner-Edstrom and the 
host of other various and sundry marketeers, PR flacks, and other 
unscrupulous characters charged with ensuring Microsoft's continued 
march towards domination of all consumer spending decisions in the 
developed world.
    Please consider the revision of this proposed agreement to be 
more in line with what many industry insiders consider to be a 
fairer solution, as detailed on this page.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Joe Fish ([email protected])
    DataCapture Technologies Inc.
    510 Southwest Boulevard
    Kansas City, KS 66103
    http://www.dctkc.com
    P: 913.831.7226 F: 913.831.7233



MTC-00017880

From: Steve Rapaport
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea, we will all regret it 
when mediocre microsoft products rule our lives.
    Steve Rapaport
    CTO, A-Tono Inc.
    http://www.a-tono.com/



MTC-00017881

From: twitchy wonderpig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I believe the current proposed settlement does not 
fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor 
inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement based solely 
on settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Byrd
    Edmonds, WA

[[Page 26480]]



MTC-00017882

From: Jason Crist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea, and will have negative effects to 
the development of technology.
    I would appreciate your help as would so many in this world.
    Jason Crist



MTC-00017883

From: Leo Hejza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement currently proposed in the Microsoft case does not 
restore competition in the computer industry, will not prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its illegal practices, and is not in the 
public interest. It should be rejected and replaced with a plan that 
will accomplish these objectives.
    One such plan is the following: divide Microsoft into six 
companies. Three of the companies have full rights to Microsoft's 
operating system intellectual property and three of the companies 
have full rights to Microsoft's application intellectual property. 
The three operating system companies will have no choice but to 
compete with each other on price, capabilities, and innovation; 
similarly, the three application companies will have to compete. 
None will have a monopoly in their respective areas.
    This plan is no more radical than the ATT breakup and such a 
plan is the only solution to the current situation with Microsoft.
    Leo A. Hejza
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00017884

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a Tunney Act response to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement: The proposed settlement apparently will extend 
Microsoft's monopoly since as part of the settlement they will have 
the opportunity to place their products in schools. If fountain pen 
dealers had a lawful opportunity to place their products in schools 
for the use of students and no other commercial entity had a similar 
opportunity, we would find that nearly all school children would 
continue to use fountain pens in adulthood, and pencil and ball-
point pen manufacturers and sellers would suffer. It will be nearly 
impossible under this settlement for students to gain knowledge of 
operating systems and software other than that produced by 
Microsoft. Few students will bring their computers running other 
systems into class.
    Microsoft has been judged to be a monopoly but the proposed 
settlement only aggravates and extends their monopoly position. A 
much better settlement will require that Microsoft give cash 
payments, not products, to schools so that each school can purchase 
a variety of hardware and software. This way the students will be 
exposed to other operating systems such as UNIX, Linux, MacOS, and 
the applications that run on those systems. In addition this more 
open settlement will allow schools the freedom to use settlement 
funds to try other systems which may come along in the next few 
years.
    I will be happy to answer any questions about this response. 
Please contact me by email.
    Very truly yours,
    Marilyn W. Sweet
    6540 Bradley Boulevard
    Bethesda MD 20817



MTC-00017885

From: Markus Lamminm(00E4)ki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea!
    Markus



MTC-00017886

From: The Real Bev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to this settlement. In view of the 
chilling effect that Microsoft's predatory practices have had on the 
entire PC software development community, which in turn unduly 
limits, for all practical purposes, the software to which the 
general public has access, it is wholly inadequate.
    Sincerely,
    Beverly Ashley
    Pasadena, California



MTC-00017887

From: Ben Conner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:25pm
Subject: settlement comments
    Gentlemen,
    Having been in the computer field for over 30 years, I have 
watched with interest as Microsoft has gained their current market 
position. Never have I seen a more classic case of abuse of monopoly 
position. I spend a good deal of my time helping clients clean up 
messes left by Microsoft applications that break or ignore standards 
set by the industry. After several versions of released code, one 
can only draw the conclusion that it is their intent to cause this. 
It can't be explained away by ignorance or stupidity on their part. 
Given that this arrogance is part of their corporate culture, 
assigning a few ``code cops'' is going to be as effective 
as having a handful of auditors to look over returns at the IRS.
    They have already proven they can't be trusted-what makes 
you think keeping them intact will improve their policies? If you 
believe this is speculation, take the acid test-try and order 
a PC without Microsoft products on it from any major manufacturer. 
It isn't possible. And under your new guidelines, nothing will 
change.
    If you haven't noticed yet, do you know how Microsoft says 
``Screw You!''?
    ``Trust Me!''
    + Ben Conner
    + Web World, Inc.
    + PO Box 6548-107 +
    + Orange, Ca 92863 +
    [email protected] +
    (888) 206-6486 voice +



MTC-00017888

From: Richard Congdon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the Proposed 
Final Judgement (PJF) currently before your division vis-a-vis 
Microsoft(MS). I don't know ifs it is relevant, but I want to give a 
brief essay on why this would unjust. Unlike some others you will be 
hearing from, I am no MS-hater. They usually produce software of 
equal or superior quality to their competitors, and for that they 
should be commended. More than that, if they do produce a superior 
products, I think that they should dominate the market. That is, as 
long as this superiority is not achieved by secret knowledge and 
manipulation of the underlying infrastructure. While monopolies such 
as MS enjoys with it's various Windows OS's can sometimes be (and in 
this case is) beneficial, they should be treated as such. In order 
to allow for the possibility of innovation in non-OS software, MS 
must be compelled to reveal -all- of the particulars on 
how MS OS's work. Otherwise, it is virtually impossible for MS 
competitors to compete, simply because MS not only holds all the 
cards, but is also the one with the card printing press.
    This problem would have been solved if Judge Jackson's breakup 
had occured. Since there will be no breakup, I dearly hope that the 
Justice Department will come to some sort of agreement that 
restrains MS's behavior, and also provides real penalties for non-
conformance.
    Richard Congdon
    Harvard School of Public Health
    617/432-0995



MTC-00017889

From: Ross Rannells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Over the past 12 years Microsoft has done everything it could 
both legally and illegally to control the desktop computer market. 
They have stolen software from companies, used their monopolist 
position to put companies out of business and eliminate competative 
software. They have used the courts to put companies out of business 
that have won court cases against them.
    They have significantly stiffled development of new software and 
hardware. They have even managed to bankrupt a company by declaring 
they were developing a competitive product that they never released, 
which is why there is no longer a light pen interface in DOS/Windows 
even though they were on the market in the early 1990.
    The only software product to increase over time in the entire 
computer industry are those produced by Microsoft. Every other 
company, whether they produce hardware or software, managed to 
increase performance while dropping prices. Today Windows takes 
longer to boot, is less stable and the root cause for every maor 
computer virus outbreak since 1990. Microsoft complete disreguard 
for thier clients and computer security has lead to a state of 
complete

[[Page 26481]]

paranoia over computer system security. Microsoft has managed to 
ignore the cries for more secure and more stable Operating Systems 
and system level software du to their monopolist position in the 
market. Currently the US leads the world in computer technology, 
that will not continue if Microsoft is allowed to keep in its 
monopolist position in the computer industry. The US has already 
fallen behind in wireless web and cell phone technology due to 
Microsoft's influence over new development eviroments. In many 
European and Asian contries the development of Linux and other OS's 
is starting. Sooner or later someone will hit on the right 
combination of price, features and stability. Then the US will be 
topled off the top position in the computer industry.
    Microsoft must be dealt with now. They need severe penalties and 
limitation put on their ability to control the computer market. 
Forcing them to divest of their hardware production division, their 
game consul devision, their communications holding, and they putting 
a wall between the OS and other software development divisions will 
go along way to reinvigerating the computer industry in the United 
States. Additionally, making them publish the prices the OEM's pay 
for the OS and other software as well as eliminating the 
restrictions on OEM distributing other OSes would also be needed. 
Over the past couple years we've seen Be, NeXT and IBM eliminated 
from the desktop OS market even though they had superior products 
and were less expensive. Microsoft's exclusive agreements with OEM 
that limited the OEM capability to sell other systems made it 
impossible for the other companies to have a chance.
    Microsoft was found guilty of monopolist practices and that 
conviction was unanamously upheld by an appeals court. Why are you 
allowing Microsoft to dictate the terms of the settlement. Their 
powers need to be limited and their abuses eliminated. If not the US 
will no longer be able to control the computer industry.
    Ross Rannells
    Computer Technology Professor
    Purdue University



MTC-00017890

From: Lawrence Kestenbaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Final Judgment
To: Department of Justice Re: Micosoft Proposed Final Judgment
    The Proposed Final Judgment is deeply flawed and should NOT be 
put into effect as it stands. In my opinion, it allows too many 
exclusionary practices to continue, and does not reduce barriers to 
entry. In general, I agree with the analysis posted online at http:/
/www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html and I support the amendments he 
proposes.
    Lawrence Kestenbaum
    Attorney
    Owner, PoliticalGraveyard.com web site
    Washtenaw County Commissioner (mentioned as identification only; 
the County has not taken a position on this)
    Lawrence Kestenbaum, [email protected]
    Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106



MTC-00017891

From: Shawn Gatchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am opposed to the settlement that the USDOJ and Microsoft have 
arranged. I do not believe that it prevents Microsoft from 
continuing to exhibit the behaviors that have supported its monopoly 
thus far, including bundling with its OS software that can be 
clearly defined as belonging to another market (Internet browsing, 
instant messaging, and audio/video players are among these 
applications). I advocate a provision that at least allows 
competitors'' applications to receive equal visibility wherever 
Microsoft tries to extend its OS into other markets. It is the 
responsibility of a monopolist in one market to acknowledge market 
boundaries, rather than blur them. I am a software developer for a 
small company, and I am afraid of a time in the future when 
Microsoft bundles with their OS software for building Internet 
portals. I even refuse to disclose the identity of my employer in 
this letter for fear that Microsoft's aggressive retaliatory tactics 
may affect our sales and my future.
    It is also inherently flawed that Microsoft's partners must 
pursue legal action if Microsoft discontinues a partner's contract 
due to the partner giving a Microsoft competitor presence on the OS 
that Microsoft considers undesirable. The reality is that it costs 
money to pursue legal action, which has a stifling effect on such 
action when Microsoft has such deep pockets. I would be mollified by 
a contract where the loser in such a dispute is required to pay all 
legal fees. Otherwise, litigious remedies to such disputes are shown 
to be inherently and unjustly favorable to the party with more 
money. I would also like the remedy to include language that advises 
injunctive relief for future suspected behaviors in order to provide 
timely remedies for the aggrieved.
    The area of the settlement that involves monetary compensation 
is anticompetitive itself and laughable. The idea that Microsoft 
gets a mandate to distribute its own software to schools, where it 
has heretofore had to deal with fair competition, is ironic. If 
removed from the context of an antitrust settlement, it looks like 
an initiative from Microsoft to expand into new markets, giving away 
software to influence the next generation of computer users. It 
comes at little cost to Microsoft, as they are free to valuate their 
own software. It also does nothing to compensate those who have been 
damaged by Microsoft's anticompetitive action. I would rather see 
Microsoft continuously paying hard cash for a larger oversight 
committee for the extent of their lifetime as a monopoly. This 
remedy would more accurately influence Microsoft's behavior than a 
one-time charity handout.
    In closing, I am shocked at the way Microsoft's unyielding 
arbitrators have consistently stonewalled attempts at generating 
fair settlement. I feel that they have taken advantage of the 
USDOJ's and the US legal system's faith in the arbitration process. 
A judge should not be afraid to reject this settlement and impose 
remedies that precisely target both the monopolistic behaviors of 
which Microsoft was found guilty and the processes in the legal 
system that have been inefficient in checking these behaviors.
    Sincerely,
    Shawn Gatchell



MTC-00017892

From: Lord Moskrin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree



MTC-00017893

From: Adam Megacz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft trial Tunney Act comment
    I strongly oppose the current MS/DOJ settlement. I'm sure you've 
recieved plenty of standard replies, so I'll leave out the things 
that I'm sure many others have already said. However, here is a 
suggestion you probably haven't heard yet: ``Smallest useful 
unit''
    Microsoft must divide Windows into a set of ``smallest 
useful components'' (browser, kernel, shell, media player, 
etc), and attach a *single* price to each one. Any entity 
(businesses, OEMs, consumers, resellers) must be allowed to purchase 
any number of licenses for any combination of these components, 
paying only for the components licensed. Licenses must be 
transferrable and resellable. Interfaces between components must be 
fully and publicly documented.
    The Windows source code should be made available under NDA to a 
few leading computer science universities (I suggest Carnegie 
Mellon, MIT, Berkeley, CalTech, Stanford, and UW), whose expert 
faculty will be responsible for determining if Microsoft has 
artificially made components interdependant, and if the inter-
component interfaces are sufficiently documented.
    Thank you for your time.
    -a



MTC-00017894

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    My Word! Please settle this case soon. This is getting 
ridiculous. Microsoft has expressed sincere cooperation in trying to 
get this matter resolved. Why not accept a reasonable proposal. In 
today's Wall Street Journal (1-23-02), it was implied 
that these continuous litigation cases is just an attempt to keep 
Microsoft tied up in court and prevent them from innovating. I have 
to agree. These other companies just can't stand the fact that 
Microsoft has out-innovated them. It is in the public's best 
interest to get this thing over with. Continued litigation and 
compromises is just going to make the computer a more difficult and 
expensive product to use.
    Thank you for hearing me.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Jim Rodgers

[[Page 26482]]



MTC-00017895

From: Carl Holmberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl M. Holmberg
213 Mehani Circle
Kihei, HI 96753
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW.,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
22 Jan, 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I would like to state several of my objections to the Microsoft 
Anti-trust settlement as it stands as of 01/22/2002.
    1. The settlement would not restrict the core way in which 
Microsoft unlawfully maintained its Windows operating system (OS) 
monopoly, namely bundling and tying competing platform software 
(known as ``middleware'') like Web browsers and Java, to 
the OS.
    2. The settlement has no provisions to create competition in the 
OS market that Microsoft unlawfully monopolized, particularly 
through it's illegal contracts with computer manufacturers.
    3. The settlement has no provisions directed to new markets 
where Microsoft is using the same bundling and restrictive practices 
to preserve and extend its Windows monopoly.
    4. The settlement makes no allowances for non-profit software 
developers. As a researcher with the Air Force Research Laboratory's 
Maui High Performance Computing Center, I can tell you that the 
majority of innovation in the software field today springs from non-
profit (ie. open source) development efforts.
    No settlement at all is better than a flawed settlement such as 
the DOJ is currently proposing. At least with no settlement, no one 
is fooled into thinking that the problems caused by Microsoft's past 
and current actions are being adequately dealt with.
    Sincerely,
    Carl M. Holmberg



MTC-00017896

From: David Shultz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a complete sham. The current proposed 
agreement simply isn't a good idea for anyone but M$.
    D. Shultz



MTC-00017897

From: Kyle S. MacLea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to voice my concern with the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. The proposed settlement allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue and as 
such is a poor ending to a succesful finding of guilt on the part of 
Microsoft. It is my feeling that it should not be adopted.
    Regards,
    Kyle S. MacLea



MTC-00017898

From: Sean M. Clifford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed anti-trust settlement does not 
sufficiently protect consumers or businesses, nor does it adequately 
address the abuses of Microsoft. Note that Microsoft abuses 
continue, despite the antitrust case.
    Thank you,
    Sean M. Clifford



MTC-00017899

From: Harry Bulbrook
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I encourage the Justice department to reject the current 
proposed judgement against Microsoft.
    One example instance of Microsoft's anticompetitive strategies: 
As the network administrators for a large network in 1995, we 
prepared for many machine to upgrade to windows95. This would be 
beneficial for many reasons, not least of which was technical 
weaknesses of its predecessor, windows 3.1. Windows95 was not 
compatible with our existing tcpip stack. Fine, since windows95 came 
with it's own. But, being in a large environment required automatic 
assignment of IP addresses, something we had been doing with BOOTP 
for several years. Windows 95 supported DHCP (BOOTP's successor), 
but not BOOTP, even though DHCP explicitly provided for BOOTP 
support in the RFC. Therefore, to aviod moving to completely static 
IP assignment, a DHCP server must be setup. The only DHCP server 
available at the time was included in WindowsNT 3.51, which we did 
not have, being a NetWare shop. NT was therefore purchased, 
requiring specialized support classes and budgetary consideration. 
In effect NT was forcibly introduced, and when explanations were 
demanded as to why two network operation systems were required, the 
decision was made to move completely to NT, eliminating NetWare.
    This experience was the first of several of its kind. I strongly 
recommend a harsher penalty for Microsoft, preferably requiring the 
publishing and documentation of its APIs for windows, word/excel/
powerpoint/access save file formats, and the establishment of 
stronger strictures against this kind of behavior.
    Thank You
    Harry Bulbrook
    Instructor, Durham Technical Community College
    1637 Eaast Lawson St.
    Durham NC 27707



MTC-00017900

From: Curtis Rey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    More restraints!



MTC-00017901

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a concerned citizen, PC consumer, and voter I would like to 
express my disagreement with the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case. The proposed settlement is a slap in the wrist to a 
montrous monopolistic empire.
    In my opinion Microsoft continues to hold the PC market hostage. 
Its newest operating system is so intrusive that it should not be 
made legal to use. It intrudes in the privacy of customers and it 
monopolizes the use of any type of information acquired by the OS.
    The proposed judgement does not guaranties that Microsoft won't 
continue to maintain its current monopolistic grip of PC operating 
systems. Thus, the PC sector as well as the consumer suffer due to 
the lack of market and technological competition. It is very simple. 
Go to ANY computer store (Fry's, Office Depot, Dell, Compaq, IBM, 
etc)
    What is the operating system they sell? Simple: Microsoft Is it 
possible for them to install other operating system and sell it?: 
NO. The market is owned by Microsoft.
    Please continue litigation of the Microsoft Antitrust Case. 
Microsoft Corporation can't be allowed to continue as the PC 
monopoly that continues to be.
    Hector Mercado
    Sunnyvale, CA
    408-735-8842



MTC-00017902

From: Derek Bastille
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am composing this email to express my strong concerns with the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. Unless Microsoft is reigned in more 
tightly than proposed in the settlement, they will continue to 
sacrifice all other aspects of their buisness in their quest for 
marketshare. This can easily be seen in several areas:
    (1) Preannouncements. Whenever a potential competitor announces 
an upcoming product that could potentially compete with an existing 
Microsoft product, Microsoft will pre-announce that they have 
something already in the works, thus squashing the newcomer via the 
pre-announcement.
    (2) Standards hijacking. Time and again, Microsoft has shown an 
unwillingness to ``play nice'' and use standards created 
by industry. Some examples are: Kerberos, Java, HTML, XML, etc. They 
constantly strive to lock users into proprietary Microsoft product 
and solutions and often use slightly modified standards to do so.
    (3) Hidden APIs. Part of the antitrust ruling was devoted to the 
fact that Microsoft uses APIs internal to Windows to give other 
Microsoft projects advantages over the competition. Office is the 
best known example. However, recent examples of this behavior 
include: creating special APIs to make data transfers and syncing. 
easier for

[[Page 26483]]

PocketPC systems than for PalmOS systems, built-in APIs for Windows 
Media Player that disadvantage third-party media players.
    In sum, all companies suffer to a certain extent from the 
``Not-Invented-Here (NIH)'' syndrome. However, none of 
them have taken NIH to the level that Microsoft has where NIH is 
used as a way to bludgeon any potential competitors. Microsofts 
corporate culture is one that only believes in a zero-sum game, that 
is, anything less than 100% market share in every area will do.
    I believe that, while Microsoft should not be forced to break 
up, that they need to do at least be forced to do the following:

-Publish and stabilize all APIs currently in Windows that are 
used by other internal Microsoft projects (Office, Money, IIS, etc). 
Further, any changes to these APIs must be documented for future 
versions of Windows.
-Ensure that all .Net APIs, schemas and protocols are fully 
documented and freely available.
-Reincorporate a fully functional, real java VM into Windows. 
Apple has done this with MacOSX, Linux has this, IBM's AIX and HP's 
Unix all have this. Microsoft refuses to do this solely to avoid 
competition with its own .Net and C# initiatives (another case 
of NIH running amok).
    Thank you for your consideration of this letter and of my 
opinions.
    Best Regards,
    Derek Bastille
    (Current contact info is in my signature block) 
    Derek Bastille, Phone: (907)474-5793
    PO Box 756020, Fairbanks AK, 99775, Fax: (907)474-5494
    Region Supercomputing Center, email: [email protected]
    User Services Consultant/ISSO-Accounts, http://www.arsc.edu/
bastille
    Visit WWW page for my PGP public key
    ARSC Help Desk: email: [email protected] voice: 
(907)474-5102 



MTC-00017913

From: Darin Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I have reviewed the documents on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement and I feel that it doesn't go far enough to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its monopolistic practices.
    Joseph D. Thomas Sr.
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    2846 Old Mill Way
    Crestview Fl. 32539



MTC-00017930

From: Ed Storm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward R. Storm
7974 Sunkist Dr.
Oakland, CA
94605
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DA 205030-001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsofts 
settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environmenbt of 
the software industry. I am sure you have recieved many such 
comments, my main concern is with the lack of consideration for open 
source projects whose goal is to interoperate with the MS-Windows 
platform. Specifically the stipulation in the settlement (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 basically allows Microsoft to refuse to share 
ANY information with open source projects, as these projects are 
usually undertaken on a not-for-profit basis. I suggest that the 
languge be added to the above section specifically prohibiting 
Microsoft from discriminatiing against not-for-profit open-source 
projects.
    Regards,
    Edward Storm



MTC-00017940

From: Brian Teague
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice Antitrust Division
    Upon perusing the proposed final judgement for the Microsoft 
antitrust trial, I wish to draw your attention to what I consider a 
grevious omission. The proposed final judgement includes no 
provision that Microsoft disclose the file formats employed by such 
applications as the Microsoft Office suite of productivity tools. No 
doubt through the exclusionary practices for which Microsoft 
currently stands trial, the Microsoft Office suite has become the 
defacto standard for creation and transfer of documents in business, 
industry and education. The inability (or, through much trial and 
error, imperfect ability) to interoperate with these file formats 
poses a major liability to corporations such as Corel and AbiSoft 
who wish to offer competetive products, not to mention open-source 
projects such as Gnumeric and Kylix.
    Even though Office 2000 claims to operate with the industry-
standard XML file format, Microsoft has not released the Document 
Type Definition (DTD) that defines the structure of these documents. 
Thus, they are still not accessible by non-Microsoft applications. 
If your intent is truly to lower the barrier-to-entry into the 
desktop computing market that Microsoft has imposed, I urge you to 
include a provision that Microsoft disclose its proprietary file 
formats just as it must disclose its APIs.
    Regards,
    Brian Teague
    Baker ``04
    Rice University



MTC-00017942

From: Aaron Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a computer professional who works primarily with personal 
computers and low-end servers, I have severe reservations about the 
proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
    The defining characteristic of Microsoft's behavior has been 
that the company is able to structure products and agreements to 
lock customers in, in a way that they simply would not dare to do 
(or even be able to), if they did not have the advantage of a 
virtual monopoly.
    For example, Microsoft has recently introduced new licensing 
schemes for large installations, called ``Volume Licensing 
6.0'' and ``Software Assurance''. These are, 
essentially, subscription plans for software. Rather than paying for 
one license which is good indefinitely, Microsoft seeks to require 
one to renew the license annually. Estimates I've heard suggest that 
this would raise the average cost of software 25 to 30 percent, over 
the time a standard license would generally be in use.
    There is a way to recieve discounts, called an ``Enterprise 
Agreement''. To recieve discounts, a company must agree not to 
use any competitive products! In order to make software upgrades 
affordable in the short term, a company essentially gives up any 
real method of transitioning away from Microsoft in the long term. 
This could have a devastating effect on Microsoft's competitors.
    This, to me, is what anti-trust codes are supposed to prevent. 
Microsoft is using its monopoly position to dictate terms to its 
customers. (The above is just one technique. I'm sure you are 
hearing of many others.) It is brazenly coercing customers into 
abandoning any other options. I am very concerned that the current 
proposed settlement does not impose any real penalty on Microsoft 
for past and current actions such as this, and doesn't implement 
more than trivial safeguards against it happening again. Microsoft 
obviously does not take seriously the current actions against it, to 
be acting in such a manner as this while settlement proceedings 
continue.
    I believe that Microsoft's monopoly advantage will serve as 
insulation against even the government's attempts to curb its 
illegal behavior, unless the DOJ implements restrictions that 
fundamentally change the way Microsoft does business, at least 
temporarily. Others can speak to specific methods far better than I.
    Without significant change, I fear that Microsoft will continue 
to be able to force restrictions on individuals and businesses 
alike, and there will be very little the rest of the market (or 
their customers) can do to stop them.
    Please take this into consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Hall
    



MTC-00017943

From: Jeff Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I oppose the proposed settlement with regard to Civil Action No. 
98-1232. Because

[[Page 26484]]

the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit upheld the conclusion that Microsoft abused it's monopoly 
power, Microsoft should have -no- say in the remedy 
phase. It's my opinion that Justice is not served if the guilty are 
allowed to define their ``punishment''.
    Respectfully,
    Jeff Adams
    Kyle Tx



MTC-00017944

From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the propopsed settlement is a BAD IDEA! Microsoft should 
not be allowed to weasel their way into a market segment that has 
not traditionally been theirs when they are supposed to be 
punished!!! By allowing them into schools you are INCREASING their 
market segment by surrounding students with MS products. Those 
students will continue to use and purchase MS products later in 
life.
    William S Manro
    Bloomington, MN 55420
    Technical Support



MTC-00017945

From: Vinu Arumugham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft skimmed billions from consumers by violating the law. 
Now it looks like they will buy their way out of trouble. They have 
paid off the Bush Administration and Congress. Are there any 
``Untouchables'' left?
    Vinu Arumugham
    1860 Bexley Landing
    San Jose CA 95132



MTC-00017946

From: Stuart Schneider
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft case. From what I've read of the proposed settlement 
online and in the media, the ``settlement'' is a joke and 
doesn't even give Microsoft a slap on the hand. None of the 
requirements in the proposed settlement will cause Microsoft to 
change their business practices.
    Thank you,
    Stuart Schneider
    Portland, OR
    [email protected]



MTC-00017947

From: Thor Brickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    After reading the proposed final judgemens in United States v. 
Microsoft, it is my opinion that, given the obvious nature of 
Mircosoft's transgression, the judgement does not do enough to 
rectify the situation and, if implemented, might even make it worse.
    There are ways the judgement could be strengthened:
    (1) The definition of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' needs to be more inclusive and far reaching. The 
language of the current definition could be easily circumvented with 
mere marketing.
    (2) The release of information to ISV's needs to be broader in 
it's statement of the purpose for the disclosure, again to insure 
that Microsoft does not use nomenclature to exclude information from 
the provision.
    (3) The Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs needs to 
include some statement about computers with a non-Mircosoft 
Operating System without any Windows Operating System Product, or 
the prohibition leaves anyone not doing business with Microsoft open 
to predatory practices. The judgement should also take into account 
Windows compatible operating systems, which it neglects to mention 
entirely. many of the definitions are too narrow or use language 
that could be misleading. In addition, the judgement does not 
address many of the license terms Microsoft is using, even though 
those are anticompetitive. There is also no comment about 
intentional incompatibilities, which Microsoft as repeatedly used to 
hamper the development of competing technologies.
    Even with the suggestions above, the judgement does not seem to 
do enough to guarantee competition in a market like the one 
Microsoft has created using predatory practices and I think it needs 
to be reconsidered.
    Thank you for reading,
    Thor Brickman
    Systems and Network Administrator
    University of San Diego



MTC-00017948

From: Walter Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the DOJ. My reasons for this are several.
    * The penalty proposed is not really a penalty. It only amounts 
to a slap on the wrist. The behavior MS has exhibited should bring 
much stronger sanctions.
    * I believe MS has abused their power to stop innovation and to 
keep new products from competing companies from successfully coming 
to market.
    * While the cost of all other computing products has come down, 
the cost of Windows has actually gone up. For example, I purchased a 
new computer and Windows 3.11 in 1994. The cost was $79.95 for the 
full product (not an upgrade). The cost of the equivalent product, 
Windows XP Professional Edition is now $299.95. This is a price 
increase of 375% in eight years.
    * The percentage of the total cost of a computer that goes 
toward the operating system (Windows) is much higher now than eight 
years ago. When I purchased my first new computer in 1994 it cost 
$2500 the OS was $50 (Windows 3.1) or 2% of the total cost. You can 
now buy a computer for $800 but the OS now costs $200 or 25% of the 
total cost.
    * Microsoft is reported to have $30+ billion in cash reserves 
while many other companies are going under. While this is not a 
crime, it does indicate that they can do anything they want to 
anyone including consumers. The only thing that can stop them are 
criminal or civil penalties. If their products had competition, they 
would have to lower prices and they would not have this huge cash 
reserve.
    * Microsoft is now adding repressive features to its programs 
that will enable them to prevent your using the product in the 
future that you pay for today. The example here is Product 
Activation. I recently had to repair an old computer using Windows 
95. I was able to reinstall the OS without a problem. With Product 
Activation, will I be able to do that four or five years from now? 
Or will MS force you to upgrade to their newest OS by denying 
Activation to older products? While I agree MS has a right to 
protect their investment, if I had a choice I would choose a product 
without this feature. I don't trust them at all!
    Sincerely
    Walter D. Wood
    599 Heather Brite Circle
    Apopka Florida
    [email protected]



MTC-00017949

From: dave campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has already become the software monopoly, and without 
something done at this point to rein them soon they will be the 
hardware monopoly too. Please rethink this settlement.
    Sincerely
    Dave Campbell



MTC-00017950

From: Christy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.

[[Page 26485]]

While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Christina West
    1311 E. Beech Rd.
    Sterling, Va 20164



MTC-00017951

From: Ryan Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following the MicroSoft anti-trust trial on and off, 
and largely, I have been saddened by the complete collapse of the 
case after the Appeals court disagreed with the original set of 
remedies. Rather than go into a lengthy discussion of what I feel is 
wrong with the settlement, let me simply say that I agree with what 
Dan Kegel has posted at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html 
regarding this proposed settlement.
    Furthermore, I would like to point out that the settlement does 
not sufficiently punish MicroSoft for the illegal actions it has 
taken in the past, let alone prevent future ones. That such a 
company can flaunt the law, and be given a slap on the wrist in 
return is a painful event to watch.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Ryan Anderson
    37237 Tamarack
    Sterling Heights, MI 48310-4163
    586-979-0016



MTC-00017952

From: Sean Spillane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I belive that the proposed settlement is a poorly considered 
solution to a major problem. We should not allow a rich company to 
decide what we want to run on our computers.
    Sean Spillane
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00017953

From: Troy Baer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I feel it is my responsibility as an American to object in the 
strongest possible terms to the proposed antitrust settlement 
between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The proposed 
settlement does little to punish Microsoft for past wrongdoings or 
to curb future antitrust violations.
    The settlement includes a number of loopholes which Microsoft 
can exploit to hamper competitors. Probably the worst of these from 
my perspective is Section III, Subsection J:
    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 is a ``get out of jail free'' card for Microsoft 
as far as API and protocol disclosure goes. By not disclosing how 
the security and authentication portions of Microsoft's APIs and 
protocols work, Microsoft is trying to hamper interoperability with 
their authentication methods (including Microsoft Passport as well 
as their bastardization of the standard Kerberos authetication 
library from MIT) from being implemented on other platforms such as 
UNIX and Linux. Furthermore, it gives them ``carte 
blanche'' to deny documentation on *any* API or protocol, 
simply by claiming it's related to security or authentication. Even 
worse is the fact that trying to keep something secure by not 
describing how it works (a technique known as ``security 
through obscurity'' in the computer/network security community) 
is well known as unworkable with software as widely used as 
Microsoft's products.
    For an example of why this is a problem, consider the Samba 
project (http://www.samba.org/). This is a worldwide cooperative 
(and largely volunteer) open source effort to independently 
implement Microsoft's file and printer sharing protocols for UNIX 
and Linux systems. Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft could 
deny the Samba developers access to Microsoft's authentication 
protocol documentation because doing so could potentially compromise 
the security of their software. This may not be what the authors of 
the proposed settlement intended, but I would not be surprised to 
see it used in such a way.
    Also conspicuously absent from the proposed settlement is any 
mention of a mechanism by which Microsoft would be punished if they 
are found to be in violation of any part of the settlement. It would 
appear that any violations must be tried once again in court. I 
would submit that specification of a large fine (eg. $1 million per 
day of noncompliance) would act as a significant deterent to further 
antitrust abuses.
    I hope that you will take these comments into consideration 
before enacting a final judgment in the Microsoft antitrust case. 
You will find a much longer commentary on the proposed settlement at 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html, with which I agree almost 
in its entirety.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. Troy Baer
    5687 Snow Drive
    Hilliard, OH 43026
    (614) 850-7328 Troy Baer, MS(AAE)
    [email protected]
    http://home.columbus.rr.com/tbaer/
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,



MTC-00017954

From: COBURN,JEFF (HP-Loveland,ex1)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't feel the proposed settlement is adequate. From what I 
understand, the following problems are not being addressed:
    1. It is well known Microsoft has intentionally 
``broken'' their software so it wouldn't interoperate with 
competitors products. I don't see anything in the settlement that 
would prevent this from happening in the future.
    2. Their end user license agreement (EULA) for some of their 
products states the product is only licensed for specific operating 
systems (all Microsoft). Applications exist to be able to run 
windows applications on other operating systems, but this would be 
illegal do to the terms of the license. If microsoft refuses to 
support the application on a different os that's one thing; letting 
them make it illegal to run it on a different operating system is 
clearly unacceptable.
    3. The settlement doesn't go far enough in opening up API's. Not 
all API's need to be documented, and it doesn't even mention file 
systems. This kind of ties back to my first point above.
    4. Not enough has been specified to prevent Microsoft from 
punishing vendors who offer alternatives. They would have to specify 
prices for the top 20 OEM's, which helps, but leaves smaller 
companies vulnerable. Wouldn't it be better to specify prices by 
volume? If you buy so many licenses, it costs X amount of dollars...
    Please consider these issues before considering this settlement 
final.
    Jeff Coburn



MTC-00017955

From: Schemmel, Grant
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would like to register my objection to the Proposed Final 
Judgement (PFJ) in the Microsoft Antitrust case.

[[Page 26486]]

    Specifically, I object to the provision in definition U, which 
does not include ALL Microsoft OS products as part of the definition 
for Windows Operating System Product. I feel this gives Microsoft an 
unfair advantage in future technologies which could replace existing 
ones.
    I also object to the PFJ's proposals to eliminate entry barriers 
for Independent Software Vendors. There should be no restrictions on 
the use of disclosed data, which should also be released at least 6 
months prior to any formal release by Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Grant Schemmel
    Principle Test Engineer, BSEE, MSCS
    1451 R Street
    Penrose, CO 81240



MTC-00017956

From: Calvin Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This is a bad idea. A better solution would be to split 
Microsoft into an operating systems company, and an applications 
company.
    Calvin Taylor
    11510 SW Terrace Trails Dr.
    Tigard, OR 97223



MTC-00017957

From: Michael D. Mooney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market, the office applications 
market, or the Web Browser market. This is especially important in 
view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past transgressions through 
aggressive OEM licensing, intentional ``de-commoditizing'' 
of open standards (Kerberos, java, HTML, javascript, DNS, BOOTP, 
etc.), introducing ``Vaporware'' in response to competitor 
products (Caldera vs. Microsoft: http://www-cs-
students.stanford.edu/kkoster/microsoft/caldera.html), and including 
code in its system software for the sole purpose of producing 
incompatibilities (Caldera vs. Microsoft again). Most important, the 
proposed settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's previous 
actions. There are no provisions that correct or redress their 
previous abuses. They only prohibit the future repetition of those 
abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of 
law. If a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, 
benefit from those acts and then receive as ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Mooney
    1007 S. Congress Ave., #1028
    Austin, TX 78704



MTC-00017958

From: Derek Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The biggest problem with this settlement is that is is taking so 
long. There is a lot of things Microsoft has done that is totally 
wrong. I could fill an entire email with things I find to be anti-
competitive. Microsoft will use the defence that they just want to 
innovate, but I can promise you they have never ever innovated. 
Everything they have they stole or purchased from someone else.
    At this rate, by the time the courts go through the thousands of 
cases there will be no chance for any competition.
    Here is my suggestion that would remedy this solution. My 
experience is the fact I have over 15 years of programming 
experience. The reason Microsoft is a monopoly is that if you go to 
the store, all software there is for Windows. Even if a competitor 
made a better Opearting System it would fail because there would be 
no programs the new Operating System could run. Here is the key tho, 
Microsoft ripped off Sun Microsystems and created a CLR (Command 
Language Runtime) to run Windows applications in. It opeartes almost 
exactly like the Java Virtual Machine. I think the reason Microsoft 
has gone this way is so they can make a monopoly in the embedded 
device market, or possibly they are paving the way so that windows 
can move to a processor besides the Intel x86 platform.
    If Microsoft was forced to make a fully stand alone open source 
CLR, and then was forced to implement that CLR on other operating 
systems such as Linux, OS/2, FreeBSD, etc then those other operating 
systems could run all modern windows applications that used the CLR.
    The reason the CLR implemention would have to be open sourced is 
because I would not trust Microsoft to release it closed source. How 
could I trust they would't put a worm or backdoor in it? Even worse, 
I doubt they would really support it that well. If it was open 
source we could fix bugs ourself as time went on.
    This seems fair. the CLR has NOTHING to do with Windows 
operating system. Forcing them to open up the CLR would give us 
nothing in the internals of the Windows OPERATING SYSTEM. This would 
simply make it so people could go to the store, purchase a program 
and run it on almost any computer with any operating system.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
    Derek Young
    [email protected]



MTC-00017959

From: Thor Brickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    After reading the proposed final judgemens in United States v. 
Microsoft, it is my opinion that, given the obvious nature of 
Mircosoft's transgression, the judgement does not do enough to 
rectify the situation and, if implemented, might even make it worse. 
There are ways the judgement could be strengthened:
    1) The definition of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' needs to be more inclusive and far reaching. The 
language of the current definition could be easily circumvented with 
mere marketing.
    2) The release of information to ISV's needs to be broader in 
it's statement of the purpose for the disclosure, again to insure 
that Microsoft does not use nomenclature to exclude information from 
the provision.
    3) The Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs needs to 
include some statement about computers with a non-Mircosoft 
Operating System without any Windows Operating System Product, or 
the prohibition leaves anyone not doing business with Microsoft open 
to predatory practices. The judgement should also take into account 
Windows compatible operating systems, which it neglects to mention 
entirely. many of the definitions are too narrow or use language 
that could be misleading. In addition, the judgement does not 
address many of the license terms Microsoft is using, even though 
those are anticompetitive. There is also no comment about 
intentional incompatibilities, which Microsoft as repeatedly used to 
hamper the development of competing technologies. Even with the 
suggestions above, the judgement does not seem to do enough to 
guarantee competition in a market like the one Microsoft has created 
using predatory practices and I think it needs to be reconsidered.
    Thank you for reading,
    Thor Brickman
    Systems and Network Administrator
    University of San Diego



MTC-00017960

From: Jose Marinez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:34pm
Subject: Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please stop this madness.
    I would like to use other operating systems, but I can't. Not 
because these systems are technically inferior nor user friendly, 
but because of technical and ``cultural'' restrictions 
that have come about due to the Microsoft monopoly. In a world of 
open standards and free market economies there should be no need for 
a monster of the size and influence of Microsoft. Take for example 
the IE scenario. Back in the early days of the internet, Netscape 
was king of the browser market. People were very satisfied with the 
level of ease that all of a sudden you could

[[Page 26487]]

browse the web. Netscape on the other hand was making money the all 
fashion way: producing a product that offered obvious value. Then 
comes Microsoft, after realizing that they were late to the latest 
economic and social revolution; decides to ``compete'' in 
the browser market. So what is wrong with that you say, well 
nothing, for the exception of how it was done. Microsoft as it has 
always done with most of its technologies, when out and bought a 
browser. But let me give you an example of the kind of negotiation 
that was involved in these acquisitions.
    Microsoft: We want the best browser available on the market to 
compete with Netscape. What do you have?
    Browser owner: Well, we have a product that can compete with 
Netscape head on. As a matter of fact, no other company can match 
us.
    Microsoft: Can we test your technology and see your code?
    Browser owner: Yes, under certain agreements.
    Microsoft: No problem, after all, we are Microsoft.
    Browser owner: I believe that our technology is worth $X 
millions of dollars. Your company as well as any other competitor 
would agree.
    Microsoft: We like what we see. But we are not willing to pay 
that much for it.
    Browser owner: Sorry, but we really can't sell for less.
    Microsoft: You don't understand. Since we control 95% of the OS 
market, what ever browser we bundle with our OS will become the 
defacto standard. It will only be a matter of time. Do you and your 
browser want to ``make history'' or will we have to go to 
another competitor and make them the history makers. What do you 
say? I think this is a ``sweet and innovative'' deal.
    Browser owner: It seems like I don't have much of a choice. I 
either sell to you at your price and with your conditions, or I'm 
out of the game for good because eventually you'll control the whole 
market. I think the choice is clear.
    This is a very simple and classic scenario of what Microsoft can 
do to competitors and rivals. I'm not even mentioning the fact that 
there were other companies that probably had better technology but 
due to the competing obstacle of Microsoft ceased to produce a 
better product. As a consumer, I'm stuck with what may be mediocre 
technology and with no choice or hope of making a change.
    Please stop the insanity. Don't sell out. This is more than just 
a complicated monopoly case. The future of technology as well as our 
economy for the next 20yrs. is at stake.
    Thank you,
    Jose Marinez



MTC-00017961

From: Hunter Dixon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am firmly against this settlement.
    Hunter Dixon
    [email protected]



MTC-00017962

From: John Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Past 
behavioral remedies have had no effect on Microsoft, and there is no 
reason to believe this one would be different.



MTC-00017963

From: Armando Di Cianno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is an awful plan. As a college student 
focused on computer science studies, I have long been aware of the 
strangehold Microsoft has put on innovation, and it hurts me just to 
be aware of it.
    --Armando Di Cianno
    [email protected]



MTC-00017964

From: Jeremy Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm not an expert, but the settlement doesn't seem to compensate 
victims of Microsoft's actions in the past, account or punish for 
illegal actions continuing today, nor prevent or discourage future 
illegal activity. In short, it stinks!
    -Jeremy Black



MTC-00017965

From: Crews, Ford G ERDC-ITL-MS Contractor
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses.
    This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If 
a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit 
from those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely
    Ford Crews



MTC-00017966

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    It is time to settle this case. It has gone on far too long. You 
will never please everyone, including the nine states that have 
refused to accept the proposed settlement. I think the judge should 
just tell those nine resisting states that his/her decision will be 
final and binding. Let's just get this over with. Microsoft has made 
a generous settlement offer. The judge can offer modifications to 
the proposal if needed. But, please decide something and close the 
case. It is costing the consumer in terms of dollars and confusion 
to keep this ongoing.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Jim Rodgers



MTC-00017967

From: Robert Weiler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:34pm
Subject: Do not approve this settlement
Robert Weiler
Perfectsense Software
536 Marin Ave
Mill Valley, CA 94941
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Tunney Acts comments
US Department of Justice
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed final 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I have been a software 
developer for over 20 years and I am currently an executive of a 
start up corporation and have extensive experience with Microsoft's 
products as well as those of Microsoft's competitors. In addition, I 
have followed the trial very closely and have read the relevant 
documents. I would like to remind the court that the Microsoft has 
committed extraordinary public relations resources in an effort to 
influence public opinion, and ultimately, the court. Thus, it is 
likely that the overwhelming majority of pro-settlement comments 
were bought and paid for by the criminal. I trust that the court 
will take this into account and treat those comments accordingly.
    Microsoft corporation has committed a serious federal crime. 
They received a fair trial, and the decision was unanimously upheld 
by a Court of Appeals. Microsoft has been repeatedly warned for past 
violations of the law and indeed the entire reason that this case is 
presently before the court is that Microsoft is unwilling to change 
their business practices to conform to the law. Microsoft is 
understandably reluctant to abandon those business practices as they 
are extremely effective and have allowed Microsoft to illegally 
eliminate competition and subsequently raise prices. Consequently, 
Microsoft has been able to make and retain extraordinary profits 
even despite the current recession. The Proposed Final Judgment is 
flawed for the following reasons:
    1) It will do nothing to restore competition.

[[Page 26488]]

    Microsoft corporation has effectively eliminated competition on 
the desktop due to illegal practices. Apple computer holds less than 
5% of the desktop market. OS/2, as a direct result of Microsoft's 
violation of the law, holds almost nothing, and Linux, the only 
likely future competitor, has perhaps 1%. Since Bill Gates, a 
founder and CEO of Microsoft, publicly derided the quality of past 
releases of Microsoft Operating Systems products at the Windows XP 
launch, and has recently derided the security of all Microsoft 
products, it is fair to say that Microsoft's success has not been 
due to having a superior product. Instead, their success is due to 
illegal licensing terms and the application barrier to entry. The 
Proposed Final Judgment allows Microsoft to continue discriminatory 
licensing practices and to continue to maintain the application 
barrier to entry. In addition, the language contains so many loop 
holes as to be unenforcible. I propose the following language for 
section IIIb:
    ``Microsoft shall offer all of their products to all 
customers at the same price. Microsoft may set a lower limit on the 
number of copies that are purchased directly from the corporation, 
but may not set any terms for distributors that buy a large number 
of copies and redistribute them in smaller volume. Microsoft may not 
enter into any discriminatory Market Development Agreement'' 
Once a Microsoft product has been legally purchased, Microsoft 
should have absolutely nothing to say about how that product is 
subsequently resold. For section IIIC, I would propose the following 
wording: ``Microsoft shall impose no additional terms on its 
OEM's or distributors regarding subsequent resale of Microsoft 
products.''
    Section IIID appears to attempt to reduce the application 
barrier to entry, but does not do so in any way that is effective. 
In addition, it contains serious loopholes that would not allow 
developers to develop for any platform other than Windows, nor does 
it take into account Microsoft's other monopoly in desktop 
productivity software. For section IIID, I would propose the 
following wording:
    ``Upon release of any Microsoft software product, Microsoft 
will provide complete documentation of any protocols, file formats, 
and APIs. In addition, Microsoft will license any intellectual 
property required to implement such protocols, file formats,and 
API's under a royalty free and non discriminatory basis to any 
interested party.''
    In addition, section III.J.2 must be dropped in its entirety. 
The only logical reason for this provision is for Microsoft to 
prevent competition from GNU Public License software, which 
Microsoft views as its primary competitor. Microsoft should not be 
able to select its desired competitors.
    2) It imposes no penalty on Microsoft for past violation of the 
law. As a direct result of illegal business practices, Microsoft has 
amassed a cash pile of over 35 billion dollars. Some of that money 
belongs to the taxpayers due to the expense of the trial. In 
addition, Microsoft should pay some sort of fine for past violation 
of the law.
    3) It fails to recognize that Microsoft posses two monopolies; 
one in desktop operating systems and another in office productivity 
software.
    I addressed this in my previous comments, but it bears 
repeating. The proposed final judgment deal only with Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly. In addition, Microsoft possesses a 
monopoly in desktop productivity software. To a large extent, this 
monopoly was also illegally obtained by bundling Microsoft office 
with the operating system at greatly reduced cost, and using the 
operating system profits to offset the loss. Once the competitors 
were eliminated, Microsoft raised prices. Microsoft currently views 
the Linux operating system as it's biggest competitive threat. The 
largest factor preventing Linux from competing on the desktop is the 
lack of a 100% compatible office suite. Microsoft must publish and 
license their Office protocols and file formats on a non 
discriminatory royalty free basis. In addition, Microsoft must not 
be allowed to use Office licensing fees as a club to prevent 
operating system competition.
    4) It contains no effective provisions for enforcing the 
judgment. The technical committee proposed would have no actual 
power to enforce the agreement. In addition, the committee members 
would have a clear conflict of interest since one of the members is 
chosen by Microsoft and they would paid by Microsoft. Any violation 
found by the committee would still need to be brought to court 
before a remedy could be imposed. I would propose the following:
    ``The Plaintiffs will appoint a special master with the 
poser to enforce this judgment. Microsoft shall have the right to 
appeal decisions of the special master at their expense. The special 
master and staff will be employed and paid by the Department of 
Justice. Microsoft will reimburse the Department of Justice for 
reasonable expenses incurred by the special master and staff 
incurred in the performance of their duties.''
    5) The term of the agreement is too limited.
    I would like to point out that the term of the agreement is not 
tied to any goals. The agreement should remain in effect until there 
is effective competition in desktop operating system and office 
productivity software markets. Microsoft can hardly complain about 
this as if the remedy is ineffective, it hardly matters. If it is 
effective, it will only serve to undo the effects of past illegal 
conduct and this should be the goal.
    Robert Weiler



MTC-00017968

From: Erik Van Benschoten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Erik Van Benschoten



MTC-00017969

From: Brian Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm familiar with the phrase ``Blind Justice'' but 
perhaps I misunderstood it's meaning all of these years...
    Microsoft is trying to do to the US legal system exactly what it 
has been doing to the entire computer industrie for as long as it's 
been around... Control it.
    The proposed judgment is a joke. It is as clearly full of holes 
as Microsoft is guilty. Microsoft and its lawyers are trying to pull 
a fast one and the Government is playing right along. Many of the 
proposed judgments clearly HELP Microsoft!
    Please reject the proposed judgment and continue the suit.
    Thank you,
    Brian Ray



MTC-00017970

From: Un L'Unique
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    As ancien progammer and Chief system adminstrator, I am 
currently against the proposed settlment because:
    1) http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html, I share most of 
there complain
    2) it will not break the current Microsoft monpoly
    3) it will not prevent Microsoft to extend its monoply to other 
software as for example, www
    browser,
    office application or langage.
    Sincerely,
    Un L'Unique



MTC-00017971

From: Toby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my objection to the proposed settlement 
in the United States vs. Microsoft case.

[[Page 26489]]

    The biggest problem I see is that the settlement is not a 
structural remedy. Oversight remedies have been tried against 
Microsoft in the past, and they have coded around them, lobbied over 
them, and legally maneuvered past them every time. The only thing 
that hasn't been tried yet, and that has a hope of working, is to 
break them up.
    Breaking Microsoft up into OS/Applications/Other divisions 
wouldn't break their monopoly, but it would make it more difficult 
for them to use their OS monopoly to create new monopolies in other 
areas, which they are doing with Windows XP and WMA even as I type 
this. Thank you.



MTC-00017972

From: darmok@ supernova.dimensional.com @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement regarding the federal 
antitrust case against Microsoft is not in the best interests of the 
public. There are many reasons why I do NOT support the proposed 
settlement as it stands. I refer you to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html for a partial description of those reasons.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Steve Genoff
    Software developer
    Attached: web page cited above



MTC-00017973

From: George Robinson II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional, Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly has been the pain of my work for the last six years. I am 
elated that justice is being sought against them, but it is not 
justice for the guilty to determine the punishment. As a watch these 
procedings, it has been clear that they hold the courts in contempt 
and have no interest in co-operating with the courts. The guilty 
should be punished for the gross irreperable harm they have caused 
the market and the consumer. The proposed settelment does not do 
this; it may even benifit the guilty party. Do NOT settle.
    George Robinson II
    San Clemente, Ca



MTC-00017974

From: Rexford Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am writing to express my deep concern over the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. This agreement, specifically secition 
III(D), will give Microsoft the right to hide operating system calls 
that are currently used by various open source software projects 
like Samba. Samba is critical to my business, as it allows me to mix 
and match the best products (Linux for my engineer's workstations, 
and Microsoft servers for my back-end data storage). If Microsoft is 
allowed to hide their operating system calls in such a way, it will 
mean that I may no longer be able to buy Linux workstations for use 
in my network. This would be a direct exercise of their monopoly 
power in the operating system market to stifle innovation in the 
engineering workstation market.
    Please do not go forward with this fundamentally flawed 
settlement agreement.
    Rex Hill
    14360 Janal Way
    San Diego, CA 92129
    [email protected]



MTC-00017975

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I beg you to reconsider this settlement. It is a VERY bad idea. 
The world is watching this, and it's outcome will not only reflect 
on our justice system, and the integrity of our government, but will 
send the message to all people, both young and old, that our 
government does not exist to serve it's citizens, but only to defend 
the wealth of corporate monopolies. Even in these darks times, it 
becomes more and more obvious each day.
    I beg off all of you to reconsider this.
    Thankyou for your time,
    Concerned U.S. Citizen.



MTC-00017976

From: Damian Yerrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:33pm
Subject: The Microsoft settlement may backfire
    To whom it may concern:
    The United States Department of Justice has proposed a 
settlement with Microsoft Corporation in the anti-trust case, the 
terms of which include Microsoft donating software licenses to 
schools. I consider this settlement a bad idea because it is highly 
likely to backfire and strengthen Microsoft's monopoly. For one 
thing, the restrictions placed on Microsoft are overly narrow.
    See http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html For another, the 
``retail value'' of Microsoft software named in 
descriptions of the settlement is highly inflated, as it costs less 
than a dollar to press a disc, the balance attributed to the 
monopoly that the Congress has already granted to Microsoft under 
copyright law. (I consider a 95-year copyright term under the Bono 
Act more than a bit excessive for software that generally becomes 
obsolete within five years, but that's another letter for another 
day.)
    Even worse, the proposed settlement gives Microsoft even more 
mindshare and more power among the most intellectually vulnerable of 
American citizens, namely our children. Microsoft's predatory 
tactics named in the findings of fact included ways of convincing 
consumers that no worthwhile operating system exists other than 
Microsoft Windows. In fact, Microsoft is willing to take a loss in 
order to get this point across: witness free copies of Windows XP 
given out at offices of the U.S. Postal Service. Exposing children 
to Microsoft software and only Microsoft software sends a 
subconscious message to children that Microsoft software is all that 
exists, which only serves to strengthen the barriers to entry 
against other operating system publishers such as Red Hat, 
MandrakeSoft, Apple Computer, and Sun Microsystems. The notorious 
lack of security in Microsoft's Windows, Outlook, and Office product 
lines can potentially compromise academic integrity by encouraging 
students to learn to exploit security defects in Microsoft software 
instead of learning reading, writing, arithmetic, and some semblance 
of honor.
    If the Department of Justice wants to punish Microsoft with 
damages, I suggest that these be cash damages. I'd also want to be 
able to study the source code of Windows in order to develop other 
operating systems that can run applications programmed to the 
Windows interface or to replace parts of Windows with independently 
developed modules.
    Sincerely,
    Damian Yerrick
    a student at rose-hulman.edu



MTC-00017977

From: pheonix1t
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea. It gives microsoft gov't 
permission to increase it's monopoly. This isn't a solution to the 
problem, its a reward for acting like a bully in the market-place. 
Please reconsider this settlement....I make a living supporting MS 
products.........I know what I'm talking about!
    You think MS security is bad now.......just wait!! It won't get 
better if this settlement goes through.
    Oskar Teran



MTC-00017978

From: mike stephen
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please I beg of you to consider the separation of hardware and 
software from all sales of computer systems. This will put 
competition back in the operating system arena. Right now when you 
go to a store to buy a computer it already has windows preinstalled. 
The customer has not any choice but to buy it with windows 
preinstalled. Even if he/she wants to run OS/2, or Linux, he/she 
must pay for a copy of Windows then delete it and install their 
preferred operating system. This is double paying for two operating 
systems when only one is needed.
    Separating the two purchases (the computer hardware as one, and 
the operating system as the other) will help to level the field from 
pricing fluctuations that Microsoft currently uses to maintain the 
position in the marketplace. A company like Compaq can be forced to 
``get into line'' with what Microsoft wants them to do and 
as a result can enjoy a significant discount on purchases on 
Microsoft product. Separating the costs would put an end to this. If 
computer users want to have windows on the machines they bought, 
then they can purchase a copy at the time of purchasing the hardware 
(or later if they choose) and install it when they take the purchase 
home.

[[Page 26490]]

    When we buy a car today we all realise it needs gasoline to run. 
We all know we are going to buy gasoline. However we buy a car from 
a car dealer, then we choose to buy gasoline from any number of 
vendors. In the computer world, it is like buying a car and buying 
prepaid gasoline to run the car. We might want to buy gasoline from 
our chosen vendor, but we already have paid for gasoline at the time 
we purchased the car. This method makes no sense and microsoft has 
screwed the marketplace with poor quality software that is both 
poorly designed and poorly written. Please put a modicum of 
competition back into the marketplace.
    Separate the hardware and software sales.
    Mike Stephen
    [email protected]



MTC-00017979

From: Darin Keever
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree with the proposed settlement. It is too much in 
favor of Microsoft.



MTC-00017980

From: Chris ``Xenon'' Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is one of the 
worst legal blunders in recent history. I don't believe it is 
necessary for me to describe all of the reasons why this is the 
case, our industry has done a much more eloquent job of that.
    If this settlement is accepted, all I can say to the victims of 
the disastrous fate of the computer industry is, ``You brought 
this on yourselves.''
    Though I am impacted daily by the problems of Microsoft's 
monopoly, (most are not even recognized by this suit) I am glad for 
every day that goes by that my company is too small to be noticed by 
Microsoft. The day that changes is the day I look for a new job in a 
new industry.
    Chris-Xenon
    Chris Hanson  [email protected]  I've 
got friends in low latitudes!
    New WCS 5 Demo Version! http://www.3DNature.com/demo/
    ``There is no Truth. There is only Perception. To Perceive 
is to Exist.''-Xen



MTC-00017981

From: D. K. Smetters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the current Microsoft Settlement is badly designed, and 
will not prevent Microsoft from continuing to extend and abuse its 
monopoly power. There are a wide range of specific points on which 
this settlement agreement fails to curb Microsoft's egregious 
business practices, and even where the settlement attempts to take a 
stand on what Microsoft can and cannot do, it presents no real 
enforcement mechanism.
    Experience with prior consent decrees against Microsoft shows 
that the company will attempt to thwart the justice department in 
any way that it possibly can; and that therefore an effective 
settlement against them must be water-tight, and easy to monitor and 
enforce. It must prevent Microsoft from replacing its current 
mechanisms to strongarm OEMs into promoting Windows and IE to the 
detriment of other options with new mechanisms that achieve the same 
effect but escape the language of the settlement. You cannot hope to 
do that if you don't start with a settlement that effectively limits 
their current illegal practices.
    Please see http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html for a well-
written discussion of many of the problems of the current 
settlement. I believe this list only begins to cover the problems of 
creating an effective settlment; such an effective settlement must 
be constructed to not only prevent Microsoft from continuing their 
current offenses, it must keep them from changing the ``look 
and feel'' of their offenses slightly to escape the settlement.
    thank you,
    Diana Smetters, Ph.D.
    Member of the Research Staff
    Palo Alto Research Center



MTC-00017982

From: Chris Bartle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my disappointment of the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Microsoft continues to leverage their monopoly 
in the PC industry in very creative and powerful ways that will 
eventually cause great pains for us consumers. This settlement does 
nothing to stop it; the US government needs to place severe 
restrictions on Microsoft's activities and actually enforce them. I 
think there is the potential for the government to accomplish some 
good here, but not through this current settlement.
    Chris Bartle
    Westminster, CO



MTC-00017983

From: Josh Litherland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing with respect to my concerns with the settlement 
reached with Microsoft in the DoJ suit, regarding anticompetitive 
practices and abuse of monopoly power. I am a professional working 
in the field of computer network security, and I have witnessed 
throughout the years a host of situations in which the American 
public have been victimized by Microsoft's abuse of their 
overwhelming monopoly. Based on my reading of the proposed 
settlement, I feel obliged to comment that the remedies put forth 
thereby will be greatly inadequate to reintroduce competition into 
the numerous markets currently owned by Microsoft, or to mitigate 
the tangible damage in terms of both direct financial loss and, 
indirectly, through an absence of customer service, attention to 
security and stability and the end-user's rights of fair use.
    As an alternative remedy, I favor the suggestion put forth by 
the honorable judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, that Microsoft be 
required to provide accurate disclosure of, and support for, their 
programming interfaces (APIs, see Jackson's Finding of Facts), 
enabling third parties to develop interoperable systems with 
Microsoft's own offerings. This would, in my opinion as a computing 
professional, reintroduce customer choice into the marketplace and 
encourage merit-based competition, ultimately benefiting consumers 
through improved value offerings as well as a more rapid pace of 
innovation, which has been largely stifled during the period of 
Microsoft's unshakeable dominance.
    In short, I wish to cast my voice into the pool of those who, as 
registered voters and as active participants in the United States 
economy, insist that Microsoft's transgressions be dealt with 
fairly, decisively, effectively, and expeditiously.
    Josh Litherland ([email protected])



MTC-00017984

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the microsoft settlement is a bad idea. They broke the 
law (sherman anti-trust act) and should be held accountable.
    Brian Childs
    23 Stadium Blvd
    East Setauket NY 11733



MTC-00017985

From: Jason Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing you today to express my utter distaste with 
Microsoft's monopolistic attitude and operating procedures. I feel 
that Microsoft has, in the past and also in the present, used 
immoral (and at times illegal) tactics to crush would be 
competition. Microsoft, it seems, has an almost infinite capability 
for destruction of ideas and philosophies that some how pose a 
potential risk to their bottom line.
    The Microsoft set of operating systems are by far the most 
widely used operating systems on this planet. A large portion of the 
software application today run on (and only on) a Microsoft 
operating system. Now this in and of itself is not a bad thing as a 
software company (if they want to make any money) will write 
software for the platform in which the largest user base is 
possible. Microsoft became a monopoly when they decided to try and 
force out of business companies that are creating products that 
would allow average Windows users to use their windows applications 
on an operating system that they had no control over. Two recent 
events come to mind very easily: the WINE case and the Lindows case. 
(Lindows is being sued by Microsoft for trademark violation, 
claiming that Lindows could be mixed up with Windows. However what I 
see happening is a sort of legal bullying. Microsoft is putting 
shear legal force on Lindows that will make its efforts turn from 
its goal, writing a reasonable alternative to the Windows operating 
system, to simply defending itself.)
    Government involvement in the software industry is a very 
difficult decision for me (as

[[Page 26491]]

well as quite a few software engineers) to make. I would not 
normally lean to the side of government as I feel that the 
government should stay out of software practices. However in this 
case I am willing to support the governments actions against 
Microsoft as they have simply become too large to affect by any 
other means. That said, I am very unhappy with the way in which the 
government is handling the case. It seems that to some degree even 
the United Stated Government can be partially corrupted by 
Microsoft's power.
    I look forward to your reasonable solution to this unreasonable 
company,
    Thank You,
    Jason Howard
    Software Engineer



MTC-00017987

From: Michael Warnock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having only skimmed the PFJ, I cannot make a comprehensive 
comment on it, but i can tell right off that the definitions are far 
too narrow to do any good. Specifically the definitions of windows 
and API prevent any of the provisions from affecting the emerging 
markets, like ASP(.net), handhelds, webpads and set tops (x-box) I'm 
sure emotional plees are being ignored in general, but I'd like to 
mention that im typing this despite the pain of a fresh and rather 
deep wound at the base of one of my fingers. This settlement is too 
important for the future of the country, tech industry and even 
human race for me to hope that the other informed people making 
comments will outnumber those who microsoft paid to compose wordy 
snail mail.
    Please act out of responsibility to the common american.
    Michael Warnock-Artificial Life Programmer-InOrbit 
Entertainment
    Total hard disk crash-O pestilence!
    Now is the winter of our disk contents!



MTC-00017988

From: David A. Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the proposed Microsoft Settlement. It is too 
lenient and does not address many of the issues that started the 
suit in the first place.
    David A. Rogers
    [email protected]



MTC-00017989

From: Joe Bayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed Final Judgement in the United States 
v. Microsoft case. I believe it is unenforceable and does not go far 
enough towards restricting Microsoft from further anticompetitive 
practices.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Bayes
    701 Kingman Ave.
    Santa Monica, CA 90402
    [email protected]
    Joe [email protected]



MTC-00017990

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is bad. It is insufficient punishment and 
encourages Microsoft and others to continue. Microsoft needs to be 
split up to encourage no make that... allow .... competition. best 
regards
    Clive Bittlestone, Lucas, Texas [email protected]



MTC-00017991

From: A Pavelchek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the proposed Microsoft Settlement, I oppose it as a 
bad idea, a bad deal and inappropriate given the patently abusive 
and stifling, let alone illegal, business practices of Microsoft. It 
falls far short of requiring that Microsoft enable others to develop 
software that can reliably interface to their operating system. The 
document is a formula for a disaster for the development of 
innovative software with consequences for the economy and society. 
In particular, the requirements to provide API access are too weak, 
let alone the lack of adequate enforcement mechanisms which gut the 
whole thing.
    Andrew Pavelchek



MTC-00017992

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As one who has struggled to keep my system(s) working, in spite 
of Microsofts deliberate attempts to sabotage any other OS, I 
disagree with the proposed settlement.
    My problems with MS goes back to the days of Digital Research 
DOS, where every minor fix to Win 3.0 would cause it to no longer 
work with DR DOS until Digital Research provided a patch. In one 
case, and the code was actually posted on a BBS (sure wish I could 
have copied it) that did NOTHING but check to see if MS DOS was 
being used before it would start Win 3.X. This practice has 
continued by MS to the present day, not withstanding the legal 
problems that have been on-going. JAVA is a very good example that 
your department should use to judge that they have no intention of 
becoming anti everything that does not have MS income potential.
    Gary Crossno



MTC-00017993

From: Dan Eastman
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a registered Republican, voted for Bush and am a strong 
supported of most of what he has been doing. One of the things that 
I cannot support is his administration's stand on the Microsoft 
settlement that has been offered. Having spent most of my working, 
adult life in high technology companies in Silicon Valley, I am well 
aware of what has happened in this arena and believe Microsoft has 
grown not only because of their innovative products but because of 
their predatory and illegal approach to competition.
    They should be hammered!
    Dan Eastman
    408-867-9616 0ffice
    13745 Pierce Rd.
    Saratoga, CA 95070



MTC-00017994

From: Morss, Charlie
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is very BAD very little to remedy the problems/
practices that Microsoft has been found to be guilty of.



MTC-00017995

From: Lou Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello-
    I am a technologist and market analyst for a major 
telecommunications equipment vendor. Here, however, I speak for 
myself: The proposed Microsoft Settlement is not a good idea. It is 
not good for the consumer and it is not good for the United States 
as a whole. Microsoft must open it's API's, or we'll be going 
through this whole trial again in another 5 years.
    By opening the API's for Windows, Microsoft will not be 
prevented from ``innovating''. Rather, the field will be 
open for others to innovate in the space, so Microsoft will have 
actual competition and a reason to fix things. I must point out that 
the continued existence of Microsoft as an unregulated monopoly is 
very dangerous for the economy of the United States; Microsoft will 
have no real reason to patch it's numerous security holes without 
vigorous competition. How much money has the U.S. economy lost from 
the ``Code Red'' and ``Nimda'' virusii? Despite 
recent announcements from Mr. Gates, Microsoft will not take 
security seriously until it is a competitive threat. Does the U.S. 
government make extensive use of Microsoft products? Do you really 
think they are secure?
    Thank you for allowing me to comment on this settlement.
    - Lou Schmidt
    - Technical Synergist



MTC-00017996

From: Chris Radcliff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement to the Microsoft 
antitrust trial in its current state. As it stands, the settlement 
would do little to remove Microsoft's monopoly hold on the Intel-
based PC operating system market, let alone discourage the company 
from leveraging that monopoly to force competitors out of related 
markets. The Proposed Final Judgement doesn't take into account 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems. It contains 
misleading and overly narrow definitions and provisions, even 
compared to the Findings of Fact. The PFJ also fails to prohibit 
anticompetitive

[[Page 26492]]

license terms currently used by Microsoft. It fails to prohibit 
intentional incompatibilities historically used by Microsoft, and as 
currently written it appears to lack an effective enforcement 
mechanism. Until these problems are addressed, the Proposed Final 
Judgement will remain an inadequate solution. I urge you to 
reconsider this action.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Radcliff
    San Diego, CA
    [email protected]



MTC-00017997

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I wish to register my comments regarding the proposed 
settlement. In particular, although the Findings of Fact, paragraphs 
29 and 30, show that undocumented file formats are a barrier to 
entry, there is no requirement in the PFJ that such formats be 
documented. This is a major barrier to software that wants to 
compete with Microsoft Office (such as the OpenOffice software 
project). This means that if I wish to be able to exchange Office-
format documents, I have to run a Microsoft operating system so I 
can use *MICROSOFT* Office, since the OpenOffice project cannot 
support undocumented features in the file format. This is an onerous 
burden on those of us who wish to use other operating systems (quite 
possibly not even on Intel-based computers) where OpenOffice would 
be quite suitable and able to run, if the file formats were 
documented. This has been *directly* against my interests, as it 
means that quite often, if I am send a Microsoft Word document, I 
must go and find a machine that has a Microsoft operating system on 
it so I can use Microsoft Word to read it (or have an entire 
seperate computer in my already-small cubicle just for this one 
purpose). And the *only* reason I cannot open all documents with 
OpenOffice (which is supported on the computer that I *do* have) is 
that the file formats are not documented. In addition, I find that 
the proposed ``Definition J: Microsoft Middleware'', and 
``Definition K: Microsoft Middleware Product'' are poorly 
written, and have major problems with them, allowing Microsoft to 
avoid any real control on its continued behavior. Microsoft should 
not be allowed to exempt version 7.0.0 as middleware, merely because 
the definition specified 7.0. I also concur with most of the rest of 
the points commented on by Dan Kegel at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html.
    Valdis Kletnieks
    Computer Systems Senior Engineer
    Virginia Tech



MTC-00017998

From: Larry Lesyna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement provides inadequate 
compensation to the public. I urge that the proposed settlement be 
rejected because it is against public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Lesyna



MTC-00017999

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I must object to the agreement you have reached with Microsoft. 
As I understand it, your agreement will still force consumers to 
purchase only computers with Microsoft's operating systems. Being 
forced into purchasing something you do not want is my biggest beef 
with the way Microsoft has done business, and, as I understood, is a 
principal reason for your legal action. As a minimum, any sensible 
agreement should ensure that, in purchasing a computer, you can 
specify the operating system you want that computer to run.
    Then, the price of the operating system should be charged 
explicitly. So, if Microsoft charges a computer maker (say, Dell) $ 
25 for Windows XP (as an example), I should pay Dell $ 25 to give to 
Microsoft, $ 5 for their profit (whatever), and $ 10 for installing 
the OS (or something: installing costs time). Then, if I want Linux, 
I should pay Dell $ 10 for installing Linux. And, if I prefer to do 
that myself, I save $ 10. You can do it this way with memory, with 
extra disks, etc. Why not with the OS? Only because of anti-
competitive behavior of Microsoft.
    Isn't this the type of thing you wanted to address with your 
lawsuit?
    Sincerely,
    Nino R. Pereira, Ecopulse
    PO Box 528 Springfield VA 22150, 703 644 8419
    [email protected], www.ecopulse.com



MTC-00018000

From: Imad Elimam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:42pm
Subject: Settlement Support
    Thank god that the DOJ has realized that we just need them to 
innovate instead of drain all the company resource on litigation, I 
would really support the settlement deal and would like to voice out 
to other state (Just put politics away let us give those guys a 
break to do something good in this life for our children and not 
follow the foot steps for money campaign, but think about the tax 
payer and the future of the economics otherwise will have a company 
like Enron that is like balloon of air that is supported by bunch of 
politicians. please let the market drive our economic and the 
freedom to innovate and bundle an add on software is always a plus 
to regular users).
    Our freedom to choose that drive me to write this and to choose 
Microsoft as a my favorite software provider company. please keep 
our choices alive. Imadeldeen Elimam



MTC-00018001

From: Ralph Hogaboom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the United States Department of Justice;
    I would like to take this time to voice my dissent at the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft & the DOJ. For the last 
three years, I have witnessed Microsoft's continued monopoly in the 
US market, and have personally and professionally suffered because 
of it. I do not feel that the tentative settlement that has been 
reached adequately addresses the problems of Microsoft's monopoly, 
nor does it provide adequate protection for consumers. I believe 
that this settlement should be dismissed in favor of a new 
settlement that protects and meets the needs of American consumers, 
and that actually punishes Microsoft for its monopolistic actions.
    Ralph Edward Hogaboom
    American Citizen
    1324 14th Street
    Port Townsend, WA 98368
    360-379-2014



MTC-00018002

From: Josh Burroughs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my feeling that the proposed settlement 
is wholly inadequate, and not at all in the public interest. In 
particular, the settlement does not set out any protections for 
those developing Windows compatible operating systems. The 
settlement provides for API disclosure, but only for ensuring 
compatibility /with/ Windows, which is to say /not/ compatibility 
with Windows applications for a Windows compatible OS. A Windows 
compatible operating system, capable of running Windows 
applications, is one of the most likely ways that a true competitor 
to the Windows monopoly can develop. Without leaving the door open 
for direct, compatible competition with Windows, the settlement will 
help cement Microsoft's monopoly in place.
    Joshua Burroughs
    Sarasota, FL



MTC-00018003

From: Gwen L. Veneskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    This note is to add my voice to others who think the proposed 
settlement on the Microsoft case is a terrible miscarriage of 
justice. Microsoft has clearly abused it monopoly to destroy 
competition. This abuse has forced companies to close, cost jobs and 
hurt many people.
    Microsoft's products, although, often times, inferior are being 
forced on the public because better products cannot compete with 
Microsoft's money and monopoly. This settlement does not address the 
problem and would do nothing to help those harmed or even to punish
    Microsoft for its criminal behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Gwen Veneskey
    219 Fingal Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15211



MTC-00018004

From: Steve Milton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:46pm

[[Page 26493]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. It fails to 
address many of the most vexing issues of Microsoft's business 
practices, and needs to be re-worked.
    Stephen Milton
    14115 NE 71st Place
    Redmond, WA 98052



MTC-00018005

From: teh cheng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Federal Microsoft settlement terms are near farcical. It's 
bad enough that Microsoft is getting a minor hand slapping... 
despite the fact that the court found them to be guilty of anti-
competitive practices.
    You now claim to be ``punishing'' Microsoft by 
``forcing'' them to expand their market share in the 
educational segment?!?!
    Ignoring the fact that this allows Microsoft to continue to 
pursue market share in the education segment (while claiming this is 
their ``act of contrition''), how does this deter 
Microsoft from repeating this behaviour?
    Make Microsoft fund an education program with real dollars (aka 
no stock, equipment and/or software donations). Then keep Microsoft 
completely out of the administration of that fund. Have non-biased 
3rd parties manage the fund and allow the beneficiary schools to 
make the purchasing decision that's best for that educational 
institution.
    After spending years and millions of tax dollars, this is very 
dissapointing.
    Teh Cheng



MTC-00018006

From: negge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think settling with Microsoft is a bad idea.
    Nathan Egge



MTC-00018007

From: Jeff Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The settlement proposal with Microsoft is ridiculous. Please re-
submit something that will allow competition to be un-restrained in 
the tech industry.
    Jeff Jenkins
    San Jose, Ca.



MTC-00018008

From: Ted Bardusch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern with the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    I have been a professional software developer for 24 years, in 
the Seattle-Redmond area. I have seen Microsoft grow from a small 
group in a Bellevue bank building to the huge firm they are today.
    In my personal and professional opinion, Microsoft has done 
major harm to its customers and to US citizens by abusing its 
monopoly position in the market. It has restricted choice, forced 
bad solutions on customers, and caused major expenditure that was 
unnecessary.
    However I am loathe to bind the company from doing what it does 
do well-produce software profitably.
    Therefore I suggest as a solution:
    Require Microsoft to issue full specifications six (6) months 
before releasing any software in which they have a monopoly position 
(operating systems, office software, browsers). This would allow 
true competition while not causing any undue burden on Microsoft, 
and would not hinder their innovation nor their profits, unless some 
other firm did something better that was built on their monopoly 
products.
    Thank you for your consideration
    Ted Bardusch
    Mill Creek, WA



MTC-00018009

From: Mark Connolly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the remedy presented in this letter would result in 
dissolving a company with tremendous ability and desire to protect a 
counterproductive monopoly while preserving (and making stronger) 
the positive economic impacts of the company known for now as 
Microsoft. Microsoft would be partitioned into three new companies 
that would own:
    1. The host operating systems, including the DOS-based Windows 
variants, Windows NT, and Windows NT followers (Win2K Professional, 
Server, Advanced Server, Enterprise Server, and XP). This partition 
would include such things as IIS, SQL Server, clustering services.
    2. The network operating system, including .Net, Active 
Directory, MSMQ, OutLook.
    3. Development environments and desktop applications. This 
includes the integrated development environments (Studio, etc), the 
team development repositories, the computer aided design tools, as 
well as productivity tools (Microsoft Office, etc).
    For a period of seven years, each would be prohibited from 
getting into the others'' particular domain (the ones without 
an operating system product at the time of the breakup would not be 
able to produce their own operating system, etc).
    At first, these three entities would be highly reliant on each 
other, as each has technology required by the other. They would also 
have a bit of advantage over other companies for forging 
relationships among themselves. The fact they are separated would 
force more openness for design and interfaces, however, and over 
time this openness coupled with competitive efficiencies should 
result in a broader market with many players. It is possible one of 
these companies would not survive in the long term, but that is 
okay, and a reflection of real competition.
    As far as for fines for past misdeeds, real dollars should be 
taken from Microsoft, not bartered software and hardware. Making 
schools recipients is fine, as long as the side effect is not 
Microsoft expanding it presence in school systems. The delivery of 
largesse should be decoupled from the source of the largesse. A 
general fund should be opened for supporting education. The dollars 
should not be restricted to spending on technology (books and 
supplies are needed in too many places to worry about technology; a 
good fundamental education makes picking up the intricacies of using 
a spreadsheet a trivial exercise, while training on how to navigate 
the menus of a spreadsheet program does not require any real 
learning). Microsoft can be one of the contributors to the general 
fund, say one billion real dollars to start with, but Microsoft has 
nothing further to do with the dollars. Of course, they are welcome 
to contribute in the future.
    Mark Connolly
    8804 Red Oak Court
    Raleigh, NC 27613
    919-676-6165
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00018010

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the current settlement is overly weak, and does not 
answer most of the antitrust issues relevant to the current market 
situation. At this point, the only real remaining competitors to 
Microsoft's operating systems monopoly are Macintosh and Linux. 
Microsoft is keeping Apple in its back pocket through it's Office 
monopoly. The wording of the settlement does absolutely nothing to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing antitrust tactics against Linux. 
It is absolutely critical that Microsoft be forced to publically 
open its protocols and proprietary file formats. If getting access 
to the specs requires NDAs or a strong commercial presence, it is 
completely pointless, as free/open source software cannot respect 
those NDAs. NDAs do nothing to protect Microsoft's legitimate 
actions, as the reason for releasing those specs is so it's 
competitors can develop competing products.
    The rest of the settlement seems far too weak as well. Microsoft 
pushed achieved its monopoly position through illegal antitrust 
tactics. It continues to use illegal tactics to hold this position. 
It is absolutely critical that the government take real action to, 
at the very least, stop Microsoft from continuing these tactics, and 
ideally, make remedies for actions already taken. The current 
settlement doesn't even stop Microsoft from continuing.
    Quite frankly, I'm fed up with the repeated antitrust lawsuits 
against Microsoft, resulting in only changes no longer relevant to 
the current marketplace. It's critical that the actions taken this 
time around be stronger, and flexible enough to match the current 
market; not just that of five years ago.
    -Piotr Mitros
    MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory



MTC-00018011

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to point out two major problems with the PFJ. The 
PFJ doesn't take

[[Page 26494]]

into account Windows-compatible competing operating systems. This is 
a glaring omission that should be addressed. Also, Microsoft 
increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using restrictive 
license terms and intentional incompatibilities. The PFJ fails to 
prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the Applications 
Barrier to Entry. The PFJ should help eliminate the Applications 
Barrier to Entry, not contribute to them.



MTC-00018012

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello from Canada,
    I'm a member of the Montreal Linux User Group http://
www.mlug.ca/ and provide free software to community centers on used 
computers. The BIOS is replaced with a DiskOnChip from http://www.m-
sys.com/ and flashed new boot code to load Linux http://
www.linuxbios.org/ MicroSoft sells Pocket PC devices with Windows CE 
embedded today & will continue to do so to control a market with 
their own code. MSN is a ATM based private network of services 
combined together AOL is a ATM based private network of services 
combined together Linux is not a new company or isp provider http://
www.kernel.org/
    http://www.linuxdevices.com/ Hardware
    http://www.directfb.org/ Interface
    http://www.tvlinuxalliance.org/ TV
    http://www.linux.org/groups/ Users
    http://www.openprojects.net/ IRC
    http://www.linuxdoc.org/ Documentation
    http://www.schoolforge.net/ Education
    http://www.linuxcertification.com/ Exams
    http://www.linuxtoday.com/ NEWS



MTC-00018013

From: Adam Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opinion that the proposed settlement 
is a fair and efficient means to ensure the public's interests are 
protected in future. It addresses the concerns of the original 
action, and I feel too many of Microsoft's competitors are really 
just trying to urge the DOJ to do as much damage to Microsoft 
competitively as possible, in order to bolster their own interests. 
The losers of a harsher settlement would be the consumer, and 
ultimately businesses all over the world. Please by all means 
monitor Microsoft's accounting and business practices/plans to make 
sure they are not taking unfair advantage, but also please ensure 
that the often very innovative work of a great company does not 
suffer in the process.
    Regards,
    Adam Jenkins
    Melbourne, Australia -
    Adam Jenkins ([email protected])
    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent 
revolution inevitable.
    -John F. Kennedy



MTC-00018014

From: Jim Landon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My concerns and comments regarding the final judgment of U.S. v. 
Microsoft:
    1) MSFT should be required to allow their Internet Explorer and 
Office products to function seamlessly under alternative operating 
systems designed to operate in an x86 platform (Intel, AMD 
processors). Examples of alternative operating systems include 
Solarix x86, *BSD, and Linux.
    2) MSFT should not be allowed to load any MSFT Windows based 
operating system on the machines that Microsoft is donating for 
educational purposes. Rather, I highly encourage the government see 
to it that an open source operating system be used on these 
machines. Open source is defined as application source code being 
made freely available for review by anyone.
    3) Exclusively for security purposes, MSFT should be required to 
relinquish core operating system source code to any government 
agency that operates any Microsoft operating system internally. 
Thank you for your concern and for granting me the opportunity to 
voice my opinion.
    Respectfully,
    James Landon
    9154 Riggs Lane
    Overland Park, KS
    (913) 383-1085
    ``Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.''



MTC-00018015

From: SI Reasoning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow the farce that is the Microsoft Settlement 
to be implemented. I am the CTO of a small business and I also do a 
lot of purchasing. I know firsthand the outrageous amount of money 
we are forced to spend on Microsoft products because of a lack of 
competition that has been created by Microsoft's monopolistic 
behaviors. Here are some of the problems I run against.:
    We have been trying to implement a terminal server based system 
in the office. We have been forced to use Microsoft products because 
of the interaction necessary with several of our business partners. 
We are way to small to be able to lead in this area, even though we 
know better. The problem is, it used to be that you would consider 
software to be about 20-30% of your overall purchase of the 
machine, but because of competition in the market place in hardware 
and monopolistic tendencies in the software domain, the cost of 
buying our operating system, alone, is now 50% of the system costs. 
I recently bought a PIII 750 Compaq Server with 2 gig ram, 3 scsi 
Ultra2 36 gig 10,000 rpm hard drives, raid, etc for around $1000. To 
update to an older version of Windows server (Windows 2000 with 25 
CAL's) will cost us over $1000. Then if we want to do a terminal 
server solution, the cheapest price I have seen is $1,400 for 20 
terminal server licenses. Then we have to buy the office software to 
run it. The cheapest price to buy an upgrade to Office XP is $255 
each! So that would be an additional $5,100 for 20 users. The 
unfortunate thing is, it does not stop there. Because of the lack of 
competition, Microsoft forces us to buy over DOUBLE the licenses we 
need to implement the system. The problem is that we want a system 
that is available to our employees both in the office and away from 
the office. But because of the way they form the licenses you do not 
buy it per user but per computer. This means that we have to have a 
license for the office, for the home, and if they are on the road 
and need access in a hurry, any other computer that they end up 
having to use. It is a pricing nightmare and a huge strain.
    As you can well imagine this puts an incredible hardship on 
small companies like us, esp during depressed times when we are 
having to cut costs in many areas. The pricing scheme is very 
predatory and it is obvious by looking at hardware what healthy 
competition does to pricing.
    Please do your part to restore competition in the software 
industry!
    SI Reasoning
    Chief Technology Officer
    Protection Products, Inc.



MTC-00018016

From: Justin W Rude
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement.



MTC-00018017

From: Collinge, Douglas TRAN:EX
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Canadian but the Microsoft monopoly is a global issue. 
The software market is so perverted by Microsoft's business 
practices that it will be impossible to call it a ``free 
market'' for years, regardless of the remedies ultimately 
imposed. The current proposed ``remedy'' is nothing more 
than a license for Microsoft to continue business as usual, which 
will eventually result in extension of their monopoly to nearly 
every aspect of the Internet infrastructure.
    Douglas J. Collinge,
    Victoria, BC,
    Canada



MTC-00018018

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disaproval of the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust settlement.
    I feel that the ruling will do nothing to correct or punish 
Microsoft's previous actions. The damage to many other companies has 
already been done, and while there may be little that can happen to 
undo what Microsoft has done, it itsn't just that Microsoft should 
benefit from their previous actions.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Jolles
    1745 Hickory Grove Way
    Acworth, GA 30102

[[Page 26495]]



MTC-00018019

From: David Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ
    I have been working in technology for the past 15 years, and 
feel compelled to write you to regarding the U.S. v. Microsoft 
proposed final judgment. In the early 90's there were many companies 
selling products to enhance and extend the computing experience. At 
the time I was working for InfoWorld where I was responsible for 
finding and reviewing these products. It was at InfoWorld that I saw 
these products fall to Microsoft predatory practices. Microsoft 
began selling their Office suite, at a loss to gain market share, 
and one by one competitors fell because could not match the pricing.
    Undercut by so much, they had to stop making their products. 
Lotus, Borland and others simply got out of the business of 
productivity software. Microsoft made late changes in Windows 3.1 to 
make it incompatible with DrDos (an OS competitor) just before 
release. This forced users of DrDos to purchase DOS.
    We at InfoWorld discovered this incompatibility, and broke the 
story at the time. And the list goes on....
    It is clear to me, and many Americans as well as the court, that 
these actions by Microsoft were illegal. The current judgment 
against Microsoft is not sufficient to stop these practices.
    I believe that any judgment that does not include splitting 
Microsoft into two companies, OS and Applications, is not 
sufficient. At the very least, however, the current judgment needs 
to be strengthened to provide more protection against Microsoft's 
ability to create barriers to ISV's creating non-Microsoft operating 
systems. In order to compete in the OS space ISV's will require the 
ability to emulate the windows API. The settlement needs to take 
this into account and provide some protection against Microsoft for 
these companies trying to compete in the OS market.
    Specifically the judgment needs to be amended to ensure:
    1. Microsoft provides timely notice of all API changes (at least 
8 months)
    2. Microsoft must document all API's used by their products
    3. Microsoft must disclose all software patents that apply to 
the windows API
    4. These requirements must be applied to all Microsoft operating 
system products (XP, Pocket PC, and any other current or future OS 
product) Without strengthening the judgment in this way ISV's will 
fall prey to continued predatory and monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time.
    David Walker
    PO box 51
    Pescadero, CA
    94060



MTC-00018020

From: Geoffrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the proposed settlement I have many concerns, but will 
voice the greatest failings I find in this document.
    1. There is no provision/requirement that Microsoft must share/
publish the Microsoft software file formats. This is in regard to, 
but not limited to Microsoft Office software package which includes 
Word, Powerpoint and Excel formats. Microsoft routining changes 
these formats which makes it very difficult if not impossible for 
vendors of similar products to compete with the imbedded base of 
Microsoft Operating Systems, which use, for the most part, Microsoft 
Office based software packages.
    2. Although there is a provision that Microsoft may not stop OEM 
computer manufacturers from providing dual booting Operating Systems 
on there machines, there is no wording that would stop Microsoft 
from contractually forbidding the OEMS from selling computer systems 
that have soley a non-Microsoft operating system.
    3. There is no provision to permit a end user to sell his/her 
``share'' of their version of Microsoft Operating Systems. 
An end user should be permitted to do so.
    4. Microsoft licensing should not dictate what Operating System 
the user must used when purchasing software packages. For example, 
if I purchase Micrsoft word, I should be able to run it on any 
Operating System I deem fit.
    5. The continuation of Microsoft ownership of the dominant and 
monopolistic operating system market as well as the dominant and 
monopolistic Office software package (Microsoft Office) will 
continue to enforce Microsoft's current monopoly strangle hold on 
the current computer desktop. A reconsideration should be made in 
revisiting the possibility of breaking this company up.
    6. The primary executive staff of the Microsoft corporation, 
which includes Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and others that should be 
determined, should be removed from the control of this company. They 
should be barred from having any ownership, influence in any 
computer related business. This company has virtually destroyed the 
computer desktop environment. We could be so much further along, so 
much more productive if it were not for this innovation stifling 
company. 3. -
    Until later: [email protected]
    ``...the system (Microsoft passport) carries significant 
risks to users that are not made adequately clear in the technical 
documentation available.''
    - David P. Kormann and Aviel D. Rubin, AT&T 
Labs-Research
    - http://www.avirubin.com/passport.html



MTC-00018021

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am strongly opposed to the Proposed Final Judgment in United 
States v. Microsoft (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm). 
I do not believe it will remedy the wrongs caused by the Microsoft 
monopoly nor will it do enough to prevent Microsoft from continuing 
monopolistic behavior in the future. As an engineer and consultant 
who has worked for many years in the computer and software industry, 
I believe Microsoft's past and ongoing behavior has done and 
continues to do serious damage to competition and innovation in the 
field. It has had a negative impact on my livelihood and, worse, my 
ability to propose the best, most reliable and cost effective 
solutions for my customers and employers.
    The drawbacks to the proposed settlement are many and have been 
well documented by many others far more articulately than I can 
express here. The following link is a good place to start for 
reading some of these opinions, the majority of which I agree with 
wholeheartedly (see the section ``Essays''):
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
    Please do not let this flawed settlement turn Microsoft into an 
effective state sponsored private monopoly. That is the absolute 
*last* thing our down economy needs right now.
    Sincerely,
     -
    Ed Huott
    Information Management Services
    GE Corporate Research & Development
    Schenectady, NY
    (518) 387-6541
    *Note: The opinions expressed here are my own and do not 
necessarily reflect those of my employer or the General Electric 
company.



MTC-00018022

From: Doyle Seppala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement must not stand. Over one hundred years ago, the 
combination of lawmaking (Congress) and law-defining(Supreme Court) 
bodies laid down the antitrust laws that say despite the fact that 
we are a free enterprise based society, we are not free as 
corporations to do whatever we like. One can draw the comparison of 
personal freedoms. We have pretty much free reign to do most 
anything we like so long as it does not harm others. I can freely 
walk down Main Street with an arm tied behind my back, wearing a 
silly look on my face, and skipping every third step. People might 
consider me odd, but I can do it. If I choose to do this with the 
added strangeness of firing a bazooka into the air every third step, 
I should hope that I would be rapidly stopped from endangering 
others.
    Microsoft should have the right to bundle whatever they wish 
into a software package. That is their right. They should not, 
however, then force OEM's to make us buy that package, which is the 
current situation. The proposed settlement would codify Microsoft's 
behavior, encouraging them to require that all software sold by 
their partners be Microsoft software. The record shows quite clearly 
that this convicted monopolist will take whatever steps necessary to 
circumvent or eliminate any person, company, or law which stands in 
the way of Microsoft's goal of total ownership of all software 
markets, including the Internet.

[[Page 26496]]

    Please take future generations into consideration when deciding 
this issue. I don't want my children to be force-fed a specific 
company's idea of software. I want there to be fair choice.
    Thank you,
    Doyle R. Seppala



MTC-00018023

From: Emmett the Sane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO on Microsoft Settlement!
    I do not condone the settlement with Microsoft currently under 
public comment. The antitrust case has been so clearly and 
painstakingly laid out against this company that anything short of a 
structural remedy would be an obvious sell-out.
    Even as a conduct-only remedy, the proposed settlement is weak 
and ineffectual. It has been demonstrated that Microsoft achieved a 
leading market position with many software products through serious 
antitrust infringements, and not through honest business practice.
    Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft would simply continue 
that practice with very minor changes. The OS, desktop, server, web 
browser, word-processing, spreadsheet, and other markets would look 
exactly the same in five years: barren of serious competition.
    Thanks for your time,
    D. Emmett Pickerel
    524 Monterey Rd #1
    Pacifica, Ca 94044



MTC-00018024

From: Roger Sinasohn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I and my family are opposed to the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft for many reasons. Especially concerning is the failure of 
the settlement to address Microsoft's potential use of intentional 
incompatibilities as a means to sabotage competing operating systems 
and applications. Microsoft has in the past used this technique to 
eliminate competition from Digital Research's DR-DOS operating 
system.
    As one who spends a fair bit of time supporting computers in 
public schools and the teachers that use them, I have seen first-
hand the problems with Microsoft's monopolistic acts. As a computer 
professional for over 20 years, I have seen the stagnation of 
innovation in the computer industry caused by Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices.
    Please reject this settlement and develop something which will 
adequately censure and penalize Microsoft while ensuring that they 
are unable to continue their illegal acts.
    Thank you.
    Uncle Roger
    [email protected]
    Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
    San Francisco, California
    http://www.sinasohn.com/



MTC-00018025

From: Alan Beagley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I wish to record my opposition to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case.
    I oppose any settlement that will make it easier and cheaper for 
educational institutions to use Microsoft operating systems and 
application software, as this will result in even greater numbers of 
students coming to believe that Microsoft products are the only 
things that make a computer work at all.
    I believe that Microsoft must be prevented from penalizing 
computer manufacturers who choose to offer computers with non-
Microsoft operating systems or without an operating system at all. I 
believe that Microsoft must be prevented from imposing licensing 
restrictions that prevent users from using Microsoft application 
software (or programs created with the aid of Microsoft programing 
tools) on Windows-compatible non-Microsoft operating systems such as 
OS/2, eComStation, and Linux.
    Yours truly,
    The Reverend Alan Beagley, B.A., B.D. (Honours), Ph.D. Pastor, 
Researcher, and Computer User



MTC-00018026

From: Jeff Sturm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'dd like to add my voice to those citizens opposed to the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. The proposed remedy is inadequate in 
numerous ways, including:
    1. Inadequate protection for OEMs who ship competing products
    2. Insufficient disclosure of trade secrets (Windows APIs) that 
Microsoft leverages to maintain its monopoly status
    3. No real enforcement mechanism, other than the legal system 
For these and other reasons I feel the settlement as it stands 
cannot prevent Microsoft from continuing to abuse its monopoly 
power.
    Jeff Sturm
    i33 Communications LLC
    Detroit, MI
    [email protected]



MTC-00018027

From: Liam Cross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm bothered by the language in section III(J)(2) against not-
for-profits. Why does Microsoft get to treat these worse than it has 
to treat for-profit competitors? This shouldn't be written into the 
settlement, especially since Microsoft's biggest OS competitor is 
Linux, a free piece of software.
    -William Cross
    4100 Bison Ave #52A
    Irvine, CA 92612
    [email protected]



MTC-00018028

From: Patrick Dufour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I really believe the settlement is a bad idea and an incentive 
to promote unethical behavior in the business environment.
    Patrick Dufour
    OnLine Learning International
    37 Thoreau St.
    Cambridge, MA 02140
    (978) 371-4952



MTC-00018029

From: Mark Deckert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement isn't enough. The 
National Association of Attorneys General (www.naag.org) has a much 
better alternate settlement proposal.
    Mark Deckert
    4629 Utah St. #6
    San Diego, CA 92116



MTC-00018030

From: Charles Hixson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:46pm
Subject: No.
    The settlement proposed is grossly biased towards Microsoft. 
They should not be so rewarded for their criminal activities. The 
limitations imposed seem to be rather trivial considering the gross 
and severe and repetitive nature of the offenses. This is not the 
fist time that Microsoft has engaged in monopolistic abuse. I don't 
believe that it's even the first time they have been convicted. And 
considering the amount of time and effort that needs to be expended 
to even bring such a mamoth beast to court, to impose a trifling 
penance is at best unwise.
    A fair decision would break Microsoft into pieces, each one no 
larger than the largest of its remaining competitors (basically 
Apple Computer). I recognize that this is politically unacceptable, 
but this appears to be less than a slap on the wrist.
    I suppose that it could be argued that Apple is basically a 
hardware company, in that case I would argue that the pieces of 
Microsoft should be no larger than the software division of Apple.
    I have been quite offended by Microsofts blatant abuse of it's 
monopoly. I've also be somewhat injured, though just how much would, 
I admit, be difficult to determine. But I count perhaps 1/3 of the 
system crashes and lost data events as injury by Microsoft. I count 
perhaps 1/2 of the time spend fighting and recovering from computer 
viruses as injury by Microsoft. They have blatently and persistently 
ignored pre-existing standards of good professional practice. They 
have cut corners in a way that would have put a contractor out of 
business quite quickly. They have sabotaged their competition in 
markets both large and small. They have leveraged monopolies in some 
areas into first advantage and then monopoly in other areas. They 
have misappropriated code, and when the owner complained, put them 
out of business. Etc.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Hixson



MTC-00018031

From: Robert Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26497]]

Date: 1/23/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the the proposed final judgment in 
the Microsoft settlement. I do not believe that the proposed 
settlement addresses enough of Microsoft's practices for it to be 
effective. It also appears to leave ``loopholes'' that 
Microsoft can use to manipulate its business partners.
    My main concern is with the mystery of the Microsoft file 
formats. In my mind the stranglehold Microsoft has on the format of 
office documents prepared with their software presents the greatest 
barrier to entry for alternative office products and alternative 
operating systems. The proposed final judgment has no provisions for 
the ability to reverse the damage of years of anticompetitive 
practices in this arena. I added my name to the petition put forth 
by Dan Kegel which addresses this and many other concerns about the 
proposed final judgment.
    Thank you for your time,
    Robert Kennedy



MTC-00018032

From: Bill Werle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This settlement is a bad idea and will only serve to enhance 
Microsoft.
    Bill Werle
    Interlink Advantage
    509-455-3443



MTC-00018033

From: Najati Imam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Perhaps the most unsettling thing I see is that due to the lack 
of provisions to open the market the monopoly will not be resolved. 
Namely, due to their present file formats not being opened competing 
software development companies will not be able to create software 
to offer to end-user companies already entrenched in Microsoft 
software as viable options. Due to the volume of information already 
stored in closed formats, unless these formats are opened the entire 
settlement will be for naught.
    Thank you for your time,
    Najati Imam
    ``Mustard?! Don't lets be silly.''
    -The Mad Hatter



MTC-00018034

From: Curtis C. Chen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement is flawed, and 
should be reconsidered.
    Curtis C. Chen



MTC-00018035

From: Vlad Imshenetskiy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't think that the proposed settlement will do much for the 
companies competing with Microsoft and thus antitrust in the US.
    Sincerelly,
    Vladislav Imshenetskiy
    Vlad Imshenetskiy
    Kernel Developer, Netcool/Precision
    Micromuse, Inc.
    New York, NY
    Tel: 212-635-3131 ext.123
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00018036

From: Andrew Abdalian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Ma'am,
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am addressing this letter to you 
to state my opinion concerning the current case pertaining to 
Microsoft's violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
    I have followed this case closely, as I have been concerned 
about Microsoft's anticompetitive practices for years. The case 
seems very simple, in my estimation. Microsoft blatantly used its 
influence as owner of the Windows operating system (OS) to 
``encourage'' users to switch Internet browsers from 
Netscape's Navigator/Communicator to its own Internet Explorer. This 
is only one of many in a series of anticompetitive practices:
-the theft of Apple's graphical user interface (GUI) on which 
Windows is based
-the threat of cutting support for the Macintosh version of its 
Office suite because Apple refused to stop using its QuickTime 
technology, which competed directly with Microsoft's own Windows 
Media Player.
    All these and more are evidence enough that Microsoft cannot be 
trusted to use its influence only in accordance with the law. Now, a 
proposed settlement has come about which does little more than 
ensure that Microsoft plays by the rules. I think that this is the 
first step the government has taken in the right direction, but it 
should not be the last. In the proposed settlement, there is no 
section which requires that Microsoft be reprimanded in any way for 
the harm they have caused to the free market, competitive economy. 
Microsoft has spent years regaling in stomping out small upstart 
businesses, either by buying them out, or with such examples as 
Netscape, which grew too big to simply stamp out, using their 
operating system to effectively lock competitors out. Code in 
Windows was manipulated in such a way that no browser could be as 
efficiently implemented in the Windows operating system as internet 
explorer.
    Stronger action must be taken against Microsoft considering its 
history of success and most of its gains have been enabled solely by 
illegal and anticompetitive means. The company must be restricted in 
some manner, not just slapped on the wrist and told to play nice 
from here on out. Microsoft has shown that it has no intention of 
playing nice, and that it knows how to bend the rules to its 
benefit. This can only be prevented through stricter restraints on 
the company. I leave it up to the Department of Justice to determine 
what these restraints entail; whether they choose to split up the 
company as Judge Jackson wisely recommended, or whether they only 
choose to restrict its ability to market internet-capable 
applications as a part of its Windows software is a matter to be 
worked out with the states who are filing the complaint. Microsoft's 
proposal of ``donation'' of computers to underprivileged 
schools, which would result in Microsoft's subsequent domination of 
the education portion of the computer market, would completely 
undermine the purpose of this case. Such an act, or any variation on 
that theme, would strengthen Microsoft's monopoly power and allow it 
to muscle around the competition more than it already does. If such 
a remedy is achieved, another antitrust suit will surely become 
necessary in the near future. With taxpayers in mind, please exclude 
this possibility from your list of possible remedies.
    Thank you for reading and considering the suggestions of the 
public as you come to your decision, instead of relying only on 
Microsoft's near-perfected tactics of presenting its own 
favorable-and completely fabricated-version of public 
opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Abdalian, a concerned citizen.



MTC-00018037

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
    I am writing to express my concern about the Department of 
Justice's proposed settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case. There 
is no question that Microsoft has done irreparable harm to the US 
economy and US consumers by stifling or ``acquiring'' 
superior products and technologies, and limiting consumers'' 
choices of operating systems. This matter has been decided in 
federal court.
    Unfortunately, the settlement proposed does not effectively curb 
Microsoft's monopoly power. They still integrate and bundle Explorer 
into their operating system forcing Netscape, which is a comparable 
if not superior product, into an ``add-on'' status. The 
same is true with their media player product. In fact, Windows is 
riddled with a variety of services (called middleware) that are 
bundled in with their OS in an attempt to wipe out competition by 
reducing them to ``add on'' status.
    The key issue is that the manufacturer of an OS is using their 
position unfairly to make their applications more competitive. In 
the past, they have hobbled their standard API's that competitors 
must use, and reserve more optimal ``back door'' 
subroutine calls for their own products. Developers need full access 
to Windows API source code. OEMs ought to be allowed to high third 
parties to modify Windows to suit their hardware needs. Finally, the 
current DOJ deal relies on OEMs to provide a competitive alternative 
to Windows while the settlement does nothing to restore competition 
as is usually the case with antitrust resolutions.
    I think Microsoft makes a fine product, but their actions have 
caused many other fine products from ever appearing on computers.

[[Page 26498]]

This activity is un-American and serious controls should be placed 
on Microsoft to control their practices. Sadly, the settlement 
hardly comes close. Please serve the American people by revising 
this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Louis Rossi
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018038

From: Christopher Nebergall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have read the current proposed settlement with Microsoft and I 
disagree with it in its current state. While it does try to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its anti-competitive practices, it does 
nothing to punish them for their past actions. The mere presence of 
a monopoly like Microsoft damages competition. Since any plans to 
break up the company seem to have been abandoned at least consider 
altering the settlement to help level the playing field between 
Microsoft and its competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Nebergall
    2620 S. Lightfoot Rd
    Farmington IL 61531



MTC-00018039

From: Jeff Post
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Regarding the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
trial, please record my opinion that the proposed settlement does 
little if anything to protect consumers and businesses from the 
crushing forces of Microsoft, and I oppose the settlement.
    The reason my opinion is significant is because I am not 
affiliated with any of Microsoft's competitors, the amount of money 
I have given to Microsoft, along with my reasons for my 
``change of heart''. I am a computer enthusiast, and 
programmer. In years gone by, Microsoft courted developers, and I 
was eager to learn and use Microsoft technologies. I have purchased 
(not copied!) MSDos5.0, MSDos6.0, Windows3.1, Windows95, Windows98, 
isualBasic5.0, VisualBasic6.0, VisualC++5.0, VisualC++6.0, Excel97, 
and Word97. I have purchased indirectly (through the purchase of new 
computers) additional copies of Windows98, Windows95, and Word2000. 
I would seem to be one of Microsoft's biggest fans. It seems that 
Microsoft has no real competition in the PC market, and now that 
they dominate, they are trying limit MY right to innovate. They also 
want to control my personal information and my access to online 
marketplaces. This must not be willing promoted!
    As a citizen of the United States, I urge the Justice Department 
to protect me, and other consumers and businesses from the rapidly 
expanding monopoly called Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Post



MTC-00018040

From: Matt Rehder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft settlement is 
terribly lacking in its scope of coverage, and in its abilities 
adequately enforce the rules it sets. The language of the agreement 
is far too vague, and allows for far too many loopholes. The 
Judgment does nothing regulate Microsoft.NET or the C# 
programming language, and it also fails to mention Micrsoft's latest 
push into the tablet PC industry and their strangle hold on the 
Pocket PC industry. The Judgment barely covers Microsoft's 
monopolistic business practice over the last five years, but it does 
absolutely nothing to slow Microsoft's monopolistic powers in the 
present and future market.
    The Judgment as it stands now is an utter failure. It will do 
very little erode the Applications Barrier to Entry, because of its 
vague language, and outdated status. Also, the Judgment provides no 
special mean beyond law enforcement to enforce the settlement. The 
Judgment should at a minimum provide for a technical committee with 
investigative powers to ensure that Microsoft is following the new 
rules laid down. If this Final Judgment is agreed upon it will do 
nothing to hinder Microsoft's monopoly, and only lead to more legal 
action by Microsoft's many crushed competitors in the future.
    Matthew Rehder
    Network Operations
    University of Washington



MTC-00018041

From: Jena
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    According to the Court of Appeals ruling, ``a remedies 
decree in an antitrust case must seek to ``unfetter a market 
from anticompetitive conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal 
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future'' The wording is too 
broad in regard to specific vendor issues. This is an easy exploit 
to take advantage of. There should be a uniform pricing structure.
    The proposal in no way denies the fruits of the violation to 
Microsoft. The company has in effect stolen billions of dollars and 
countless technological innovations and placed itself as the 
governing body of computing. These billions should be distrubuted 
back into the hands of former competing companies and the trade 
secret file formats used by Microsoft should be opened to the public 
in order to even the playing field and give other companies a fair 
chance this time.
    With the market control Microsoft enjoys, only strict government 
fines in the billions of dollars at the first sign of misconduct is 
enough to sway Microsoft from repeating its hostile takeover of the 
computing world. This is in addition to fines Microsoft, in my 
oppinion, owes for previous misconduct.
    Thank you,
    Jena Perkins



MTC-00018042

From: Matt Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the settlement.
    Matt Wright ([email protected]) http://
www.mattwright.com/



MTC-00018043

From: Steven Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I do not think the idea of having Microsoft provide their 
products to schools serves as a punishment, but more as a promotion.
    1. Microsoft software is already heavily used in schools; this 
will allow them to have a larger presence.
    2. This is an area Apple has tried to cater to, with special 
promotions to help schools afford hardware/software.
    3. Software is something that can be shoveled out for free, 
because it is not a physical resource. (Example: Internet Explorer 
vs. Netscape Navigator, which was sold in commercial markets at the 
time) So, Microsoft is not paying for anything, even though they 
were supposed to be ``punished.''
    4. The deal is only temporary, as after a few years, the 
licenses will expire and the schools will then have to pay 
Microsoft. If these schools are considered ``poor,'' where 
are they going to get the money in a few years? What a nice gift.
    5. The idea that introducing Microsoft software into schools to 
provide students with the tools used in the workplace is a joke. It 
is unforunate that Microsoft software is so dominate that people see 
this as acceptable practice. Computer literacy is not about knowing 
how to use Microsoft Word; it's about knowing how to use a computer, 
and software/hardware diversity is an important part of this 
process.
    Please try to find something that actually would work and not 
try to appease Microsoft.
    Steven Fuller



MTC-00018044

From: Dan Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ is 
inadequate and should be rejected.
    The settlement fails to levy any fine against Microsoft. 
Microsoft should be forced to relinquish any ill-gotten gains from 
its illegal behavior. Any revenue gained from the sale of products 
or services that could not have been sold if Microsoft had not 
illegally extended and maintained its monopoly should count towards 
these ``gains''. Interest on the revenue should count too.
    All of this money should be given back. It is likely that the 
amount is in the tens of billions of dollars. So be it. The fine 
must be large enough to effect a behavioral change on Microsoft's 
part, otherwise it will be seen as a mere ``cost of doing 
business.'' Corporate

[[Page 26499]]

crime must not pay. In addition to the aforementioned omission, the 
existing terms of the proposed settlement have multiple flaws. The 
most significant are these two:
    1. The Technical Committee put in place by the terms of the 
settlement would have no real enforcment authority. It cannot fine 
Microsoft for noncompliance. It cannot make public statements about 
its activities. Without either ability, it is unlikely that it will 
be able to change Microsoft's behavior in any way.
    At best, the Technical Committee can extend the terms of the 
final judgement for two additional years. Since the TC's enforcement 
powers are insufficient, extending the duration of enforcement would 
be senseless and a waste of taxpayer money.
    2. Microsoft may withhold technical information on 
``security'' grounds. However, security is a pervasive 
aspect of technology at all levels. Thus the loophole of section 
J.1(a) is total.
    Failing to provide an adequate punishment for a major corporate 
criminal will set a bad precedent for future cases, including 
whatever cases may emerge from the Enron debacle. No corporation, no 
matter how influential or economically significant, should be above 
the law.
    Yours Truly,
    Daniel Cohen
    Senior Application Developer
    (781) 266-2258
    Knowledge, Inc. 430 Bedford St., Lexington, MA 02420
    http://www.iknowledge.com



MTC-00018045

From: John Fusek
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen;
    It is my opion that the settlement as proposed is a bad idea. It 
would have a negative effect on the software industry and the 
country as a whole.
    John Fusek



MTC-00018046

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am a Republican, voted for G. W. I like a lot of what he has 
done since being in office. However the Justice department seems to 
be in another camp. First the Microsoft debacle and then Enron and 
allowing them to shred documents even up to last week.
    Software was my field before retiring and I can see what 
Microsoft has done to competition maybe better than some others. 
Anybody can see how arrogantly monopolistic they are, just from 
their public behavoior. Please start doing what you are appointed to 
do. Take care of our business environment. Enforce the law! This is 
not a difficult situation to analyze, especially for good, honest, 
Republican lawyers.
    The proposal that they donate their software to schools is so 
much of an ``in your face'' gesture that anyone should be 
offended.
    If anyone has taken the trouble to read this, thank you.
    Regards, Bob Stormberg



MTC-00018047

From: Maurice Rickard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned about the DOJ's proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. The remedies outlined in the Proposed Final Judgement 
(PFJ) fail to address a number of Microsoft's anticompetitive 
practices, and ignore completely the many venues in which Microsoft 
pursues, protects, and extends its monopoly:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace 
Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all. The PFJ supposedly applies 
to ``Windows'', but it defines that term so narrowly that 
it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket 
PC, or the X-Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API 
and are advertised as being ``Windows Powered''. The PFJ 
fails to require advance notice of technical requirements, allowing 
Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by changing the 
requirements shortly before the deadline, and not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows. Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows apps from running on 
competing operating systems. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft Microsoft has in 
the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in its applications 
to keep them from running on competing operating systems.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Until these and other problems with the PFJ are corrected, its 
remedies for Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior are indeed no 
remedies at all.
    Maurice Rickard
    http://mauricerickard.com/



MTC-00018048

From: Peter Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply disheartened by the actions Microsoft has taken to 
solidify their current market position. I feel letdown by the DOJ in 
their lackluster quest to impose just punishment on Microsoft. 
Although Microsoft has been found to be a Monopoly, who used it's 
dominance to destroy their competitors, they continue with their old 
antics; for example, in Microsoft's latest release of Windows XP 
they have integrated Windows media player into the OS... sound 
familiar? How can Real Player and Quick Time compete with this? The 
DOJ must take into consideration the consumers'' perspective. 
The consumer will use what is given to them; they won't pursue an 
alternative to the integrated functionality of the Operating System. 
How about the content providers?
    Why would they use any other media utility? Once Windows XP is 
mainstream, Microsoft will have nearly 100% market share in the 
media player market... Why would the content providers use any other 
media utility? Furthermore, with Microsoft's dominance and potential 
saturation of the media market, what are users of non-Microsoft 
operating systems to do? How are the development communities of Open 
Source software and Mac OS Developers to compete? Can we allow 
Microsoft to embrace standards and ``extend'' them into 
incompatibility with legacy systems, furthering the divide between 
traditional UNIX servers and Microsoft's desperate attempt to 
dominate the server market (i.e. Kerberos)?
    I propose this resolution that Microsoft be ordered to publish 
all APIs', Frameworks', Server Protocols, File Formats, or any such 
information (perhaps excluding the Intellectual Property that is 
source code) that the development community needs to interface with 
or create emulation of all current/future Operating Systems and 
their related services.
    Thank You,
    Peter Smith



MTC-00018049

From: Steven Grimm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to express my displeasure with the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. It fails to address a critical issue that 
will allow Microsoft to continue to shut out competitors: 
Microsoft's tendency to use proprietary, undocumented file formats 
for the output of its applications and its operating system 
components. I believe Microsoft should be required to fully document 
all its file formats. This will level the playing field in many 
Microsoft-dominated areas.
    A simple but ubiquitous example is Microsoft Word. If I compose 
a Word document and send it to you, you have three choices. You can 
read it with your copy of Word (which means you'll have to go and 
buy Word). You can read it in a stripped-down, but still essentially 
correct, form using Windows'' built-in Wordpad application. Or 
you can try to read it with StarOffice or another competing program. 
I say ``try'' because chances are if I've done anything 
unusual in the document, the non-Microsoft products won't be able to 
interpret it correctly and will give you garbled results. This is a 
direct consequence of the fact that

[[Page 26500]]

the develolpers of competing applications must all reverse-engineer 
Microsoft's document format, and given the format's complexity, 
that's next to impossible to do perfectly.
    Requiring Microsoft to document its file formats would allow 
competing developers to build tools that would interoperate with 
Microsoft's. And it wouldn't be a crippling blow to Microsoft; they 
would still be free to produce the most feature-rich, efficient 
software for reading their documents, and they'd be free to innovate 
as they saw fit, so long as the results of their innovation were 
made public.
    There would be other important benefits as well. A lot of 
corporate and government documents will become lost to future 
historians if they're in a format that Microsoft has long since 
stopped supporting. Making the formats public means it will always 
be possible to go back and correctly decode old documents.
    There are other problems with the settlement as well, but for me 
this one is the biggie, and without addressing this problem, 
Microsoft will be free to continue making minor changes to its 
ubiquitous file formats such that competing products don't work well 
enough to be usable.
    Thanks for your time.
    -Steven Grimm
    Computer programmer
    Sunnyvale, CA



MTC-00018050

From: Ingles, Raymond
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Like many other developers, I am rather disappointed with the 
Proposed Final Judgement in several respects. I feel that it does 
not punish Microsoft sufficiently for anticompetitive practices, but 
more importantly it will not effectively prevent such practices in 
the future.
    To list a few brief examples: (1) The definition of 
``API'' used in the PFJ is too narrow and does not include 
many critical features. (2) The PFJ does not mandate the publication 
of Microsoft file formats, which are critical to providing 
interoperability with the monopoly's products. (3) The PFJ does not 
require sufficient advance notice by Microsoft of technical 
requirements and API changes.
    For these and many other reasons, I wish to register my 
dissatisfaction with the Proposed Final Judgement as it currently 
stands. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens of the 
United States.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Ingles (248) 737-7300
    [email protected]
    The above opinions are probably not those of Compuware, Inc. 
Yet.



MTC-00018051

From: fidvo ovdif
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional computer programmer and hobbyist, I was 
shocked to hear about the grossly insufficient proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft Antitrust case. The proposed settlement only puts a 
few restrictions on Microsoft which will do nothing to encourage 
competition.
    The danger of a monopoly in the computer industry is 
compatibility. Software must be compatible with hardware. Programs 
must be compatible with the operating system. I use Windows at home, 
not because it's the best operating system, but because all of the 
programs I run are compatible with and only with Windows. Any 
settlement that encourages competition must at the very least 
address this issue.
    If there were ten different operating systems on which I could 
run my programs, there would be competition, and Microsoft could not 
use its monopoly unfairly. I do not necessarily mean that Microsoft 
should be broken up. If they were forced to publish all of their 
API's (Advanced Programming Interface- the code that links the 
programs to the Operating System) without copyright or patent, with 
a clause barring Microsoft from litigation against those who use 
these API's to develop competing operating systems, this would be 
sufficient. It would allows third parties to develop ! operating 
systems that would run the same programs, thus encouraging 
competition. Microsoft would then be forced to compete on the merit 
of its product, which is what true competition is about.
    Once again, I consider this to be the bare minimum, without even 
addressing the numerous other issues. Any settlement that does not 
at least do this much is a statement that the Microsoft is more 
important than the law or the free market.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Hadley
    77722 Dugan Rd.
    Cottage Grove, OR 97424



MTC-00018052

From: Gabriel Wilkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:49pm
Subject: the proposed Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is exceedingly unfair to everyone except 
Miscrosoft. Big business has no more rights than any American 
citizen, and we need to stop acting as if they do. Microsoft's 
arguments that if they are punished, the economy will suffer as a 
result are ridiculous: Microsoft's stranglehold on the market has 
already killed a vast amount of innovation as PROVEN in the findings 
of fact already. To allow in any manner a further stranglehold will 
be to delay the innovation that brings the future closer, and prove 
to the American people once again just how much corporate interests 
are the only thing that matters anymore.
    The right choice, the economically sound choice, the American 
choice is to stand up to those who have wronged you, your friends, 
and your countrymen, and deal with them appropriately. This proposed 
settlement is not appropriate, it is limp-wristed, and plays 
directly back into Microsoft's original goals.
    -Gabriel Wilkins



MTC-00018053

From: McCann, Joe
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sirs,
    I am quite upset at the Microsoft Settlement that was recently 
announced. Why was there no mention of Microsoft's illegal 
agreements with system integrators to keep other operating systems 
from being available at boot time. This is a key component of 
keeping a boot heel on the neck of your competitors, and all under 
the guise of ``trade secrets''. This is no different than 
a street thug extorting money from a small business owner.
    The true difference as the OJ Simpson trial proves is you can 
get away with anything, if you have enough money to buy enough 
lawyers and lobbyists. I am quite disappointed with this settlement 
in every aspect. You have sold out the American people for NO GAIN. 
You spent millions of dollars researching and prosecuting the this 
case only to fold like a spineless slug when the inevitable heat was 
turned up. I guess as an American I should be used to my government 
selling me out, but I am not. I wonder if this will be in history 
books as the trial that set the tone for the next century.
    J. McCann



MTC-00018054

From: Bill Kristan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
case. Microsoft has already been found guilty of antitrust 
violations, and any remedy should prevent them from such violations 
in the future. The current settlement does not prevent them from 
continuing to illegally maintain their monopoly in any way. Any 
remedy for their illegal practices must at a minimum include the 
following:
    1. Microsoft Windows should be provided as an extra-cost option 
when I purchase a computer. It is currently nearly impossible to buy 
an IBM-PC compatible computer without also buying MS-Windows, 
thereby forcing me to pay Microsoft for a product I do not want. 
Microsoft's willingness to punish computer manufacturers for 
offering computers with alternative operating systems, or computers 
with more than one operating system preloaded, is apparently 
responsible for this fact, and the practice should be discontinued.
    2. Microsoft's file formats should be completely documented so 
that other software companies can write programs that are able to 
read and write native Microsoft files. Although I do not regularly 
use the Microsoft Office package, for example, the fact that it is 
not possible for me to read and write the binary MS-Office files 
that others send me has forced me to keep a copy of the MS-Office 
installed on one of my computers just to allow me to read the files. 
Furthermore, since MS-Office file formats are frequently not 
backwards-compatible I have in the past had to upgrade my copy of 
MS-Office even though I would prefer not to own it in the first 
place. The ``filters'' that other companies write for MS-
Office files vary in quality, but none are able to preserve all of 
the formatting and content of the files. This

[[Page 26501]]

is not a technical necessity, but is rather a strategy by Microsoft 
to induce customers to buy MS-Office instead of competing packages, 
and force them to upgrade when they would otherwise be content with 
their current version.
    Making the file format API public would solve this problem. I 
trust that in the Government's desire for a rapid resolution to this 
case that it will not abandon an attempt at an effective remedy. 
Microsoft has already been found guilty of illegally maintaining 
their monopoly position, and I hope that the Government chooses to 
honor its responsibility to the American consumer to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing in their illegal behavior.
    Sincerely,
    William B. Kristan, III
    925 Camas St.
    Moscow, ID 83843



MTC-00018055

From: John Courte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement sucks. You know it, I know it, and the rest of 
the country would know it too if this issue had gotten the attention 
it deserved. Do not put up with this settlement. It is wrong. 
However many billions in trumped-up retail charges for software that 
costs them basically nothing is not a settlement. It's crap.
    Make them open-source windows or give every business in the US 
free upgrades for the next 10 years.



MTC-00018056

From: Kevin Ruml
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in to let you know my point of view on why the 
settlement agreement is completely inadequate. I am in the computer 
industry, and have my MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer), 
which I received to advance my salary at my previous job. I got it 
shortly after entering the computer field, because Microsoft was 
almost all we worked with-there was some Novell, but not worth 
mentioning. Prominent in the MCSE training books are sections on 
migrating to Microsoft servers from Novell servers. It seemed pretty 
neat at the time that Microsoft made it so easy. As I continued on 
working with computers, I learned a little more about Novell, and 
then got into Linux.
    I realized that Microsoft was really a substandard operating 
system for servers, but completely owned the desktop. With this they 
did to me what they probably do to a great many computer 
technicians-lead them up the Microsoft food chain to their 
server operating system and away from anything else. A good friend 
of mine did this also, but unlike him I learned more than what 
Microsoft told me, and learned there was more and better out there.
    Most people using computers do not learn more, but just enough 
to do their job. They do not care, or necessarily need, to know 
more. So the technicians and administrators do what they are told by 
their bosses, who use microsoft on the desktop and say to use 
Microsoft, or believe what Microsoft tells them about their products 
and wants to use them.
    Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, until you look at what 
Microsoft has done in the past. They were handed their desktop 
operating system monopoly by IBM, then proceeded to continually 
illegally maintain that monopoly.
    Numerous stories, from the DRDOS issues to the more recent 
Netscape Navigator, show how Microsoft killed other products and 
companies. I think most people do not want to destroy Microsoft, 
just to make them compete fairly on the merits of their products. 
The remedies in the proposed settlement does not accomplish this. 
There are too many loopholes that even a simple change of 
terminology can get through, and not take into account possible 
future abuses. All remedies should take into account and apply to 
any new products Microsoft releases (XBOX, .NET, etc.).
    So what to do? I do think that monetary punishment is necessary. 
Microsoft has been very successful and made a great deal of money 
with their illegal practices, and should be made to pay some back. 
How much and to whom? I do not know, but maybe free software to all 
U.S. government agencies for a period of time (Five years? Ten 
years? How long were they abusing their monopoly?) would be a good 
start. I am sure the U.S. government has been one of Microsoft's 
largest customers, if not THE largest. This would basically be 
giving the U.S. taxpayers, proven in court to have been harmed by 
Microsoft, money without all the administrative problems.
    And as for remedies to keep them from abusing their monopoly in 
the future, I think the best idea is to simply have them reveal all 
Windows APIs and Office formats without discrimination. It should be 
published on their website for all to use freely for whatever 
reason. Standard ``document'', ``spreadsheet'', 
``presentation'', etc. formats that every program uses, 
regardless of what company made it, would mean that the program that 
worked the best with the best features would do the best in the 
marketplace. That is competition, not trying to keep up with changes 
in Microsoft Office formats to keep upgrades regular. Microsoft 
Office is probably the biggest reason they keep their monopoly. Yes, 
it is available on the Mac, but the difference in price from Macs to 
PCs makes the difference to companies and consumers.
    Also, Windows should not be pre-installed on all computers as 
default. A choice should be offered so that Microsoft does not get 
money for every computer sold. The consumer should have the choice 
of operating system, or none at all. Just a few thoughts.
    Thank you for your time.
    Kevin Ruml



MTC-00018057

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to submit my comments reguarding the proposed 
settlement of the case of the United States of America vs. Microsoft 
Corp. Action No. 98-1232 as provided by the Tunnely Act.
    In my opinion, as a worker in the computer industry for over 7 
years familiar with Microsoft (MS) products as well as a large 
number of other Operating Systems (OSs) and products, I do not feel 
the proposed settlement will significantly impact MS's current 
monopoly or its illegal activities as a monopoly.
    While the settlement does provide for the release of API's for 
the Windows OS and communications protocols itself, it does not 
provide for the release of documentation of file formats used in its 
other products, specifically but not limited to the Microsoft Office 
Suite. MS's other software products besides the OS are a very large 
part of why MS has become a monopoly and can use that power in an 
illegal mannor. The vast majority of work done in the corporate 
world, is done using MS Office. Competing Office suites from Apple 
Computer, Sun Microsystems and others can not accuratly and 
completly interoperate with electronic documents produced using MS 
Office due to the closed file format. Forcing MS to release full and 
complete documentation of the file formats used for all of its 
products would have no direct effect on MS's ability to market or 
sell such products. It would however allow competing products from 
other manufactuers to properly interoperate with the defacto 
standard for electronic documentation in the corporate workplace. 
This single remedy would do more to halt microsofts illegal 
practices than any currently listed in the proposed settlement.
    The settlement also limits to whom MS must release documentation 
about the Windows OS and communications protocols APIs to third 
parties that ``meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business'', from Article III, section J, 
paragraph 2, subsectoin c. From the same paragraph, subsection d, 
the settlement proposes that any 3rd party ``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 . . .''. Both of these provision can very 
easily be used by MS to prevent Open Source Software (OSS) projects 
from obtaining and using APIs from MS OSs or middleware products.
    OSS projects have no viable business per se, as they are written 
almost exclusevly for the purpose of free distribution with out 
commercial gain. Also OSS projects are written by volenteers with 
out financial backing. MS can very easily use the previously 
mentioned articles of the proposed settlement to only 
``Approve'' 3rd party verification that has excessive 
costs involved further preventing OSS projects from ever being able 
to provide interoperable and or competing products to MS's OS or 
middleware products.
    The proposed settlement has more such loopholes that work solely 
in the favor of MS and do nothing to provide remedies for MS's

[[Page 26502]]

illegal actions as a monopoly. As such, it is my opinion that the 
proposed settlement be declared invalid by the Federal Courts and a 
proper remedy including the release of full and complete 
documentation of file formats, OS APIs, Middlware APIs and 
communications protocols be made public and freely availble, without 
restrictive or exclusive licensing or verification procedures to all 
3rd parties including, but not limited to ISV, HSV, OEM, OSS 
projects and manufacturers of competing products for the purpose of 
interoperability.
    While further remedies may also be required to ensure MS's 
complience with a final judgement and to enforce monetary or 
punitive damages for their past illegal actions, any finaly remedy 
that does not address the issues I have mentioned will fail to 
effectively alter MSs monopoly possition or its continued illegal 
actions.
    MS has a documented history of breaching previous agreements 
reached with the US DOJ and during the trial exhibited nothing but 
contempt for the trial and the legal process, including falsifying 
testimony and evidence.
    Any and all loopholes in this settlement will be exploited by MS 
to further their illegal monopolistic actions. To prevent this, MS's 
lawyers, or employees direct or indirect should have no input on the 
final remedy.
    Sincerly,
    Alan Palmer
    [email protected]



MTC-00018058

From: Ted Chiang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I consider the Proposed Final Judgment in U.S. vs Microsoft to 
be an ineffective remedy to Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.
    As currently written, the PFJ doesn't give developers of 
competing operating systems a reasonable opportunity to create 
compatible products; it still allows exclusionary practices against 
hardware retailers; it doesn't address unfair licensing practices 
toward enterprise customers; and it allows discrimination against 
users of non-Microsoft products.
    I believe limiting Microsoft's power will create more 
competition in the computer industry and will ultimately benefit the 
consumer, and I hope you will take steps to make this happen.
    Sincerely yours,
    Ted Chiang
    technical writer



MTC-00018059

From: Chen, Edwina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice
    Antitrust Division
    I respectfully object to the settlement of the Microsoft case in 
the Tunney Act.
    The best interest of the citizenry has not been served In the 
atmosphere of emerging technology, information is power Microsoft, 
the company, has been masterful at controlling the flow of 
information to the general public the lack of public outcry is not 
due to services well-rendered but to the ignorance of the populace 
when full disclosure comes to light, there will be far reaching 
ramifications, especially if the government had the opportunity to 
act, but chose not to another recent prime example is the Enron case 
it is the government responsibility to safeguard the best interest 
of it citizenry and not be blinded by short term goals of one 
company
    Sincerely,
    Edwina Chen
    American Society of Civil Engineers



MTC-00018060

From: eudchhu@ newman.exu.ericsson.se@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea. Please don't allow a 
settlement.
    Thank you,
    Chris Hutchison
    System Administrator, Ericsson Berkeley
    [email protected]



MTC-00018061

From: Paul Fernhout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea because it does 
not require Microsoft to document all file formats Microsoft 
products use.
    This lack of documentation of file formats (and other related 
communication formats such as for data transfer over sockets) is a 
major barrier to competition, essentially locking users into the 
Microsoft product suite in order to read or modify documents others 
generate.
    Ideally, Microsoft should be required to document all file 
formats concurrently or before the release of new versions of 
products such as Microsoft Word or other Office products.
    Paul Fernhout
    Kurtz-Fernhout Software



MTC-00018062

From: Halsey, Roger
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I am sending this from work, this is my private 
opinion. From what I've read about the Microsoft settlement, it does 
not remedy the monopoly. It is imperitive that this one company not 
be allowed to maintain a stranglehold on our future.
    I believe that the part of Microsoft that produces and sells 
Windows should be broken apart from the parts that produce and sell 
programs that operate in Windows. With that interface exposed to 
competition, there will be competitio-on both sides of the 
interface.
    Roger Halsey
    Project Support Services
    Environmental, Safety and Health Services
    Bechtel Systems and Infrastructure, Inc.
    voice (865) 220-2143 fax (865) 220-2124
    



MTC-00018063

From: Torrey Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to express my concern and disappointment with the 
proposed judgement in the Microsoft Antitrust case. It seems that 
the Department of Justice has won the case, only to concede defeat 
at the end.
    As a software engineer, I've watched with disappointment for 
years as Microsoft has leveraged their desktop operating system 
dominance to crush one competitor after another.
    I believe that few informed purchasers choose Microsoft products 
on their merits alone-rather, people buy Microsoft mainly 
because they need to exchange Microsoft Word and Excel documents.
    One way to restore competition to the market would be to require 
Microsoft to completely specify and fully document their Microsoft 
Office file formats. No changes should be allowed without several 
months notice and complete documentation in advance. This would 
allow competitors to create viable alternatives with the ability to 
interoperate with Microsoft, and would restore competition to an 
industry that badly needs it.
    Please, consider a judgement which forces Microsoft to allow 
competitors to interoperate with their products.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Torrey Hoffman



MTC-00018064

From: Bryan Dyck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses.
    This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If 
a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit 
from those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is hardly justice, and 
is a severe blow to those who have suffered from Microsoft's 
wrongdoing!
    Though the legal proceedings for the case are taking place 
within the United States, the course of action chosen by the Court 
will have an effect outside its borders. Microsoft's

[[Page 26503]]

products are not used only by Americans, but by computer users 
worldwide, including people such as myself-a Canadian citizen. 
I ask that the Court keep this in mind when determining its 
rulings-Microsoft's actions have not only harmed Americans but 
also people from around the world.
    I applaud the Court's desire to reach a settlement in this long-
running case, and I hope that desire does not lead to a rushed and 
possibly unjust settlement simply for settlement's sake. A wrong 
that is not corrected will only be compounded in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Bryan Dyck
    Vancouver, B.C. Canada



MTC-00018065

From: McCarthy, Brendan (Space Systems)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proprietary secrets locked up in Microsoft's software have 
made my job much more difficult, and have impeded the exchange of 
information between computer programs. The uncooperative nature of 
MS software has slowed the integration of systems, and has hidden 
and continues to delay the benefits that our modern computing 
infrastructure has the potential to offer.
    Sincerely,
    Brendan McCarthy
    *The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the 
opinions of my employer*



MTC-00018066

From: Paul Arndt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    This letter is in regard to the proposed Microsoft penalties in 
the DOJ case against Microsoft Corporation.
    I feel the US Department of Justice is doing the US public a 
huge disservice by not requiring Microsoft to change their UNFAIR 
licensing practices. I work in a large Fortune 100 Corporation and 
first of all, trying to decipher the Microsoft licensing is almost 
impossible for any normal (read non-lawyer) person to figure out. I 
have also called Microsoft directly with licensing questions and the 
Microsoft person had to get more information and return my call. 
Thus, even the people hired by Microsoft to handle licensing cannot 
sometimes figure out the proper licensing requirements are.
    The fact that Microsoft is the only company that licenses 
software per machine rather than per user is ludicris. They want you 
to license a copy of Microsoft software for any machine that could 
possibly run the software which includes in many cases Unix (Linux, 
HP-UX, Sun) workstations not even running a Microsoft 
operating system if you are using the Microsoft Terminal Server 
application. Microsoft should be forced to go to a simple per user 
licensing model like all other software companies that I am aware of 
use.
    This strange licensing practice costs US corporations and small 
businesses billions of dollars each year to enrich MS executives 
pockets. It also costs the US Government additional taxpayer money 
to license Microsoft Operating Systems and applications which I 
object to.
    This practice is truly unfair and Microsoft should be penalized 
and made to change their licensing to a per user license model.
    I realize that this will have no effect as the US Government 
does not care what US Citizens have to say in matters like this, but 
this is truly unamerican and robbing billions of dollars each year 
that could be spent on other things.
    Thank you.
    Paul Arndt
    Technical Computing IT
    Information Technology
    Agilent Technologies, Inc.
    24001 E. Mission Ave., MS 3WU-482
    Liberty Lake, WA 99019
    509 921 3702 Tel
    509 921 3500 Fax
    www.agilent.com



MTC-00018067

From: Charles Wheelus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement is Unjust
    To Whom it may concern:
    I feel strongly that the proposed settlement is very unfair to 
all consumers of PC software and hardware. As a computer and 
Internet professional, I deal with Microsoft products on a daily 
basis.
    Unfortunately, Microsoft has gained a position that makes it 
nearly impossible for any company to compete with them on a level 
playing field. This situation is not much unlike the 
``old'' AT&T before they were broken up many years 
ago. Innovation was stifled. While there are many viable alternative 
operating systems available, none of them run software which was 
developed for Microsoft natively. This requires a software vendor to 
make 2 or more versions if they choose to support any other 
operating system costly.
    This is really only a problem in the ``onsumer'' or 
desktop market (retail market). This would be like one retailer 
(Sears, Walmart, etc.) locking up the entire retail market and 
controlling the flow of goods to the consumer. Obviously this would 
not be good for the consumer.
    I do not advocate the break up of Microsoft. Instead I believe 
the only real solution to this problem is to force Microsoft to 
release it's API (application interface) into the public domain. 
This would enable other companies (Sun, Apple, etc.) and operating 
systems (Linux) to build a API which could run Windows Applications 
natively on other operating systems.
    I applaud and support the ongoing state and federal effort to 
re-introduce a truly competitive environment into the Personal 
Computer market.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Wheelus
    Charles Wheelus
    [email protected]
    Office: (561) 395-6655



MTC-00018068

From: Felker, Daniel Paul (UMKC-Student)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this email to voice my opinion on the Proposed 
Final Judgement(PFJ) for the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit. What I 
found after pondering if the PFJ was truly in the public interest 
was that there still exist many loop holes that could lead to the 
same problems we are currently seeing, Although I feel there are 
many others one area of real concern are some of the definitions put 
forth, as an example consider the current definition of 
``Windows Operating System Product''. This current 
definition seems to exclude both Windows XP tablet edition and 
Windows CE, both of which can run many of the current Win32 APIs 
without any changes.
    My second concern is in the area of application barrier to 
entry, I don't feel that there has been any effort to allow for non-
Microsoft operating systems to implement APIs needed to run 
application programs written for Windows.
    By not allowing this, it would appear Microsoft would continue 
to be able to exclude other Operating Systems from running their 
application software. By continuing to not provide a way in which 
Microsoft applications can be run on non-Windows Operating systems, 
there will continue to be the same level of control on desktop 
environments that we currently experience.
    I would like to thank you for listening to my concerns, And I 
sincerely hope a reasonable solution is met.
    Dan Felker
    [email protected]



MTC-00018069

From: Adam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case is a 
horribly bad solution to the problem. In fact, it's not a solution 
at all. It continues to give Microsoft all of the monopolistic power 
they've been proven to have as well as allowing them to abuse this 
power just as easily as before.
    What needs to be done is to force Microsoft to open up the API's 
to all of its programs and document formats. This way competitors 
can interoperate with Microsoft software and the customer can choose 
which program or solution to purchase based off of the quality and 
service behind the product.
    Thank you for taking the time to hear my thoughts on this 
matter.
    Adam Brown
    [email protected]
    http://www.dicebag.com



MTC-00018070

From: Curtis C. Chen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement is flawed, and 
should be reconsidered.
    Curtis C. Chen



MTC-00018071

From: Dan Petermann
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26504]]

Date: 1/23/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a joke. You will, in effect, be 
REWARDING them. They do not currently dominate the school market, 
your settlement will hand them the market on a silver platter.
    I cannot believe that the judge actually said that a harsher 
penalty will be bad for the economy! Since when is economic concerns 
be an issue? What court would buy that as a defense? I could just 
see it now, Well, your honor, I know I committed murder but putting 
me in jail would be bad for the economy! What a load of crap.
    My proposal would be to break Microsoft into at least 2 
companies, force them to publish their source code, pay Netscape for 
every copy of their browser downloaded for free, make them ship a 
stripped out version of Windows, free of everything but the OS 
itself, and pay 15,000,000,000 in fines plus court costs.
    Dan Peterman



MTC-00018072

From: David Marston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-I DON'T AGREE!!
    Given Microsoft Corporations ``History'' of 
``failing to comply'' and the mindset of the current 
officers of the Corporation I fully believe that ``an 
example'' should be set that we are still a nation of law and 
that the Government is still the ``enforcer'' of that law! 
The ENRON failure is a glaring example of what happens when the 
Government ``fails'' in its duty to enforce on business 
entities with equal force what it enforces upon its citizens! 
``We the people'' wait and watch for Justice!
    David J. Marston, III
    3139 E. 4th Street
    National City, CA 91950-3010
    Phone: (619)474-4874
    FAX: (619)470-0802
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00018073

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    THIS HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGHT,LET AOL/TIME WARNER CONTINUE THIS 
BATTLE.
    WILLIAM J GORMAN, HOLIDAY FLORIDA.



MTC-00018074

From: James Overly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am writing to express my concern about the weakness in the 
proposed settlement in the case US vs. Microsoft. The settlement 
contains enough loopholes to make it barely a slap on the wrist.
    While there have been many people saying that we should leave 
Microsoft alone, and damaging Microsoft will damage our economy, 
this is NOT a prudent course of action. With Microsoft as the 
dominant supplier of PC based operating systems we are needlessly 
placing our eggs in one basket. Look at the number of small to mid-
size companies that were bought our or driven out of business by 
Microsoft. Wouldn't the economy be stronger as a whole with several 
competitors then one?
    Microsoft tells us that as one company they can deliver a better 
software product. This statement goes against any study of the 
business world where competition among distributors encourages 
innovation.
    Microsoft continues to use its dominate position to lock out 
competition. This is hurting the economy and the software market by 
reducing inovation.
    The Internet was founded through the work of several 
individuals, companies and universities. They developed standards 
that allow computers of dis-similar hardware and dis-similar 
operating systems to communicate.
    Microsoft is working to reduce this inter-operatibility by 
promoting its own priority file formats. These formats in general 
can only be read by Microsoft products, which can in general only be 
run on Microsoft operating systems.
    While in a perfect world file formats would be developed by a 
standards committee and followed by software companies, I hold no 
illusion that Microsoft would at best drag its feet in following 
said standards and at worst improperly implement these standards so 
they could tout the superiority of their propriety formats. In this 
case the damage has been done and we are forced to use the Microsoft 
formats as the De-facto standard.
    To this end Microsoft should be REQUIRED to publish its file 
format descriptions so non-Microsoft software can be developed to 
read the formats. It will only be when there are enough non-
Microsoft solutions that sane universal and open standards can be 
developed.
    Perhaps it can be argued that Microsoft has obtained it 
monopolistic position through legal means, I am not in a position to 
argue that point, however, now that they are a monopoly they must 
NOT be allowed to use their position to maintain it. They also must 
NOT be allowed to illegally profit from their position as well.
    There is no need for one large company to control the software 
market. This is hurting business and consumers alike.
    Thank you for your time.
    James Overly
    Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    60 Garden St. MS 81
    Cambridge MA 02138
    (617) 496-7544



MTC-00018075

From: Jason Alexander Crosswhite
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:54pm
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am very unsatisfied with the current verdict for the following 
reasons: Microsoft is a monopoly. I have seen the whole industry 
suffer for it. I would like to see a structural remedy rather than a 
conduct-only remedy. I see their current arguments as more of what 
we have seen from Microsoft for years. You might as well have not 
have even tried to prosecute them. Its not even a slap on the wrist. 
Interoberability enforcement needs to be stronger. Not only does 
Microsoft need to make its formats and protocols openly available 
(especially, for instance the file format for Word, Excel, etc.), 
but it needs to make it available for the open/free software 
community. Wording in the settlement precludes this, and open/free 
software is starting to be some of the only real competition to 
Microsoft in several areas.
    There is no penalty for Microsoft's past misdeeds. This is 
astonishing!
    Microsoft has consistently not lived by the intent or spirit of 
past aggreements, and has consistently been a bad member in the 
software community. The settlement relies on elements that will play 
directly in to their hands: secrecy, lacking independence, and able 
to be influenced by Microsoft.
    The provisions in J.1 and J.2 give Microsoft too much leaway. 
They should have to justify secrecy to a high degree. I am 
especially worried in this regard to the free/open software 
community. The internet relies on this typ of software (For 
instance, ``bind'' is free software, which is universally 
used on the internet to transfer domain names (like usdoj.gov) to 
numbers computers can understand (like 128.223.95.56). Apache is a 
free web server that runs on the majority of servers on the 
internet.). Any type of encumbrence on this community would allow 
the Microsft verdict to be used -for it's 
advantage-!!!!!
    Please seek a better resolution to these matters. Hopefully a 
structural one in addition to the problems listed above.
    Jason Crosswhite
    Graduate Research Assistant
    Department of Geosciences
    University of Oregon
    [email protected]
    http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/jacrossw
    (541) 346-4653 Cascade, room 124



MTC-00018076

From: Andy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am displeased with the direction of the MS anti-trust case. 
With the pending settlement it seems that many of the most pertinent 
issues will not be handled adequately.
    Quoting Dan Kegel:
    ``The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards 
OEMs, but curiously allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs,

[[Page 26505]]

including important regional ``white box'' OEMs, if they 
offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems. By allowing these practices, the PFJ 
is encouraging Microsoft to extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible 
operating systems, and to leverage it into new areas.''
    To me this is unacceptable. Because of Microsoft's market 
position, allowing them to retaliate against an OEM for shipping a 
competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating system 
virtually determines that no OEM will be willing to do so. Because 
of Microsoft's monopoly, it would in fact be suicide for any 
consumer PC distributor to defy Microsoft. In particular these rules 
are extremely inept at protecting small business from further 
damage.
    Thank You for your time,
    Andy Somerville
    Computer Science Student,
    Pennsylvania State University.



MTC-00018077

From: Jason Whittington
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 2:53pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Actually I don't think it's fair to blame MS for the prevalence 
of WinModem style devices; rather it's shrewd marketing on the part 
of the device manufacturers. Said manufacturers have figured out 
that using the CPU as a sort of DSP lets them offload parts off 
their boards and make them cheaper. Nobody notices until they try to 
play quake online and all of the sudden their computer can't hack it 
:) I haven't priced modems in years but it used to be that winmodems 
were less than half the price of real modems, which is the only 
thing that explains your popularity (Intel was able to sell the 
486SX for basically the same reason).
    The manufacturers then don't bother to release drivers for other 
OS's because they see it as a waste of time-windows drivers 
allow them to cover 80-90% of the market with just two drivers 
(one for the 16-bit platforms, one for the NT family). The target 
audience of the Winmodem is bubba who buys his computer at Wal-mart, 
not sophisticated buyers.
    My current complaint about Windows is the retarded way it 
handles TCP connections. Let one patch cable slip out for 1 second 
and the stupid OS drops all your net connections. Never mind that 
TCP/IP was *specifically designed* to handle transient net failures. 
Stupid . . .
    Jason
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018078

From: Mark Fasheh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed Microsoft settlement in it's current 
form. I do not believe the proposed restrictions will change 
Microsoft's behavior and restore competition to the market.
    Mark
    ``A haircut and a real job. Now you know where to get 
one!''-Robotfindskitten
    Mark James Fasheh
    
    President, UCLA LUG



MTC-00018079

From: Andy Shih
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom This May Concern,
    I was informed that I would be allowed to submit my opinion on 
the current proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft for the ongoing antitrust case by what I consider to 
be a reputable mailing list. Please accept my apologies if this is 
not the case. However, if there is even the possibility that my 
voice may be heard, I will most gladly take the opportunity.
    I feel that none of the proposed settlements and resolutions 
offerred so far by either side is adequate. In fact, I feel that all 
the proposals I am aware of so far is far from acceptable. They all 
lack any regulations that will require a change in the 
anticompetitive behavior we have all witnessed committed by 
Microsoft. I congratulate Bill Gates and Microsoft with their 
achievement in creating products that are very useful to the 
majority of the world community. However, to leverage that success 
so that no one else can follow in their footsteps and rise to 
achieve what we all commonly call the American Dream is simply 
dispicable. Using special API's (Application Programming Interfaces) 
so that Microsoft products work better and faster than products made 
by other companies is unethical. Requiring hardware vendors to 
promote and use only Microsoft products is unethical. Bundling 
software, so that a comsumer is forced to purchase is unethical. 
Basically, what Microsoft has done is to take away one of the most 
fundimental rights of not just all Americans, but all human kind. 
This is the inherent right to choose. By Microsoft's standards, it 
is either their way, or no way. That becomes the only choice. This 
is why whatever decision is made about the anticompetitive nature of 
Microsoft, this issue must be addressed.
    In light of recent events, the only item of the three I have 
listed that I have seen addressed is the requirement by Microsoft 
that hardware vendors who promote Microsoft are rewarded, while 
those who do not are punished. However, to ignore the other two 
aspects of Microsoft's monopoly is to doom all of us to repeat this 
process all over again. To insure that the playing field is level 
for all, Microsoft must be forced to reveal -ALL- API's 
that come with all their applications, not just their OS. In this 
manner, any software and hardware vendor will have the ability to 
create new and innovative products that will be fully compatible 
with any Microsoft product. This should also not just be limited to 
established businesses, but the public in general. This is the most 
important point because at some point, any institution had to begin 
as an idea in the mind of an individual. Individuals must not be 
forgotten in this process, and be given the same rights as any 
established institution.
    Another issue I had raised is the bundling of software. The best 
example of this is what Microsoft had done with their operating 
systems and Internet Explorer. While I think that integrating and 
bundling a web browser with the operating system is something useful 
and innovative, the fact that Microsoft made it impossible for any 
other web browser to achieve this level of integration is what make 
the practice unethical and anticompetitive. Users need choice. If 
Microsoft wishes to integrate a web browser into their operating 
system, then so be it. However, the same opportunity must be present 
for other web browsers as well. There would not be an issue if users 
were able to choose among other browsers, such as Netscape or Opera, 
as their web browser of choice in the operating system, the the 
playing field will be level again for all competitors in this arena.
    Microsoft may complain about the amount of work needed to bring 
about these changes, but it was due to their actions that we are 
mired in such a state. It is the responsibility of Microsoft as a 
corporation to bring about the changes necessary to fix this 
situation. If they are unwilling or afraid of the work required, 
then they can leave this industry. Capitalism and a free market 
dictates that someone will fill the void that they leave, have no 
fear of that.
    This is my view of how the situation with Microsoft may be 
resolved.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Andy Shih



MTC-00018080

From: Tim Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement terms with Microsoft do 
nothing to limit their abuse of the marketplace, and may actually 
enhance their market position as a monopoly in the computer 
operating systems and Internet/productivity applications market. My 
feelings are a result of industry experience as an administrator of 
Macintosh and Solaris SPARC servers and workstations in primarilly 
Windows environments. I would be happy to expand on my feelings and 
findings at your convenience.
    Tim Smith,
    Systems Administrator,
    KKLH-FM kklh.com,
    Springfield, Missouri
    #30 TLS



MTC-00018081

From: Jeff Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:55pm
Subject: proposed settlement is unfair to everyone but Microsoft
    I do not support the proposed settlement because I do not think 
it provides sufficient

[[Page 26506]]

punishment to balance Microsoft's offenses, nor sufficient incentive 
to prevent them from doing the same in the future. Furthermore, the 
idea of punishing a monopoly by requiring them to extend their 
monopoly into the US educational system is incomprehensible.
    Further, I believe that Microsoft continues to steal from the 
citizens of the world and cheats the other businesses/corporations 
of the world.
    I believe that Microsoft will stop at nothing short of market 
domination. Microsoft has caused us enough damage already, let's 
stop them before it is too late.
    Jeff Anderson
    Nashville, TN



MTC-00018082

From: Stefan Wasilewski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Stefan Wasilewski. I am a professional in the 
computer industry. I am strongly opposed the the proposed 
settlement.
    Here are some reasons why:
    Microsoft holds a dominant position throughout the software 
industry. A remedy which deals exclusively with 
``middleware'' is not sufficient. All Microsoft software 
should be covered.
    There should be no restrictions on pricing or product tying. 
Microsoft should be left free to develop and sell its products as it 
sees fit. The only exception to this are the rules which cover OEMs 
ability to include competing products instead of Microsoft ones.
    Microsoft's monopoly position is founded on its control of 
proprietary interfaces. Microsoft products are linked through a 
network of proprietary interfaces, making it difficult for 
competitors to produce software that will inter-operate with 
Microsoft software. If the proprietary interfaces were published 
then competitors could produce software that competed directly with 
Microsoft without the expensive and error-prone process of reverse 
engineering.
    These proprietary interfaces are in the form of file formats, 
network protocols and APIs. All three need to be made available to 
competing products.
    Where two Microsoft products work together the interface between 
them can best be made available by setting up a ``Chinese 
wall'' between the development groups responsible for them, and 
then requiring Microsoft to publish all the technical data that is 
exchanged between these groups.
    Where one copy of a product communicates with other copies of 
the same product (such as when an MS word document is sent to 
another MS Word user) the file format or communication protocol 
should be published in a form which allows independent verification 
that the product conforms to the published description.
    Special consideration should be taken of Open Source Software 
development over the questions of cost, trade secret status and 
patent licensing.
    The ``security related'' exception to disclosure 
should be narrowed to include only keys, passwords and similar 
security tokens.
    Thank you,
    Stefan Wasilewski
    [email protected]
    1401 Gulf Stream Circle
    Brandon, FL 33511



MTC-00018083

From: Gregory Bradford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Opinion
    To whom this concerns,
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    As a California resident I am very disappointed that the US 
Attorney General has settled with Microsoft on such an important 
issue in such a minor manner.
    I have many friends who have lost jobs because of Microsoft's 
unfair trade practices. Please be fair to my friends, give them some 
justice. Many of California's high tech firms, which have been very 
innovative (such as Netscape for example) and have brought us all 
great wealth, have been driven out of business or something close to 
that by Microsoft's monopolistics practices.
    It is not in California's, or the US's interest, to let 
Microsoft go essentially free once again. I urge you to adequately 
address Microsoft's illegal practices.
    Otherwise, I truly fear that our technology industry will be 
crippled by being handed over to a monopolistic corporation which 
seems to extend it's reach on a week by week basis.
    If you need proof of this reach please take the time go down to 
you local software store. It would be a safe bet that one out of 
every two software titles there will carry the Microsoft name. In 
some categories of software there is no longer any competition. 
Please try to buy a spreadsheet product that is not made by 
Microsoft. Or try to buy a piece of business presentation software 
not made by Microsoft. It is virtually impossible Go to your local 
electronics store. Microsoft has now built a large presence in palm-
top computers. It is only a matter of time before Palm will be gone 
just like Netscape.
    At your local electronics store take note of the new X-Box 
technology. A company even as large as Sony will have a hard time 
competing in game consoles when Microsoft is deliberately losing 
hundreds of dollars for each X-Box sold. Recently, a Morgan Stanley 
analyst, Mary Meeker estimated Microsoft will lose $1 billion on the 
X-Box. Who can afford to lose $1 billion dollars? A monopolist can 
since it can subsidize busineses that would otherwise fail. This is 
not in the consumer's interest.
    A couple of months ago I was purchasing a digital video recorder 
called a TIVO. Microsoft competes with this product with their 
Ultimate-TV product. I was directly told by a Microsoft salesperson 
in a retail electronics store that I would regret my purchase 
because TIVO would soon be out of business because Microsoft is 
going to put them out of business. Even the lowest Microsoft 
employees understand that they hold all of the cards at the moment.
    Take note of Microsoft's balance sheet. If their balance sheet 
is accurate, then it is a smoking gun. Compare it to IBM's, Sun 
Microsystem's, Oracle's, Borland's, Corel's, Amazon's, AOL's, and 
other's balance sheets. Not one of these other companies has the 
wealth and influence that Microsoft retains. It is only a matter of 
time before several of those companies are forced out of business 
because there is no way for them to compete on an equal footing. 
Lastly, note Microsoft's effort's to control access to the Internet 
via it's Passport and .Net strategies. These strategies are designed 
to slowly wear down the consumer into submission to Microsoft's 
desires. Much like Microsoft has done to the DOJ it will attempt to 
do with consumers. Microsoft is very patient. It is the key to their 
survival.
    Please, do not allow them to do this. It is readily apparent 
that justice is not being served. It has been discarded by the 
Department of Justice in favor of moving on to less than adequate 
remedies. I urge everyone involved to carefully consider my 
comments, and those of others, to arrive at a conclusion to this 
case that will serve the interests of all.
    If Microsoft is not reigned in quickly you will be buying all of 
your software, electronics, information services, and anything else 
Microsoft desires to take-over from one vendor. Think about it! This 
is a national crisis that can be avoided!
    Thank you,
    Gregory Bradford
    AirportTools
    22434 Creston Drive
    Los Altos, CA 94024 USA
    Phone: 1-408-736-5898
    Fax: 1-408-736-5898



MTC-00018084

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I've been programming computers for twenty-five years. And for 
about the last ten, I've been feeling that Microsoft has been making 
my life progressively more difficult. I acknowledge that some of 
Microsoft's actions have simply been annoying rather than illegal. 
However, I believe that some have been illegal. I was disappointed 
in the limitations in the scope of the antitrust trial to begin 
with. I was frustrated by the repeated delays that Microsoft used to 
further their monopoly. And I am further disappointed by the slap-
on-the-wrist nature of the proposed settlement.
    Microsoft has demonstrated time and again that they do not 
actually believe they are capable of doing any wrong. They have 
indicated that they do not believe that the US justice system has 
any real jurisdiction over them.
    I believe that the original two-part breakup itself would have 
been inadequate to prevent Microsoft from illegally exercising and 
extending its monopolies. At this point I believe that Microsoft has 
three monopolies: (1) desktop operating systems (Windows), (2) 
office suites (Office), and (3) web browsers (Internet Explorer). 
And they are competing strongly in several other areas, without yet 
having gained dominance: (1) internet access

[[Page 26507]]

(MSN), (2) web site design (Front Page), (3) palmtop operating 
systems (Windows CE), (4) server operating systems (Windows 
Professional), (5) web services (.NET), (6) game systems (XBox), (7) 
digital video recorders (UltimateTV, now apparently being folded 
into the XBox), (8) computer peripherals (IntelliMouse, Natural 
Keyboard, etc), (9) streaming media (Windows Media Player), (10) 
instant messaging (Windows Messenger), (11) webmail (Hotmail), and 
probably many more that I'm not familiar with or not remembering 
offhand.
    Short of massive structural remedies (I was a fan of the 4-way 
breakup), the only chance I see of a world not effectively owned by 
Microsoft is the rise of open source software (also known as free-
as-in-speech software). Open source can be nearly free, which is 
pretty much the only price point that Microsoft cannot match in the 
long term. (Since once software is written, it is nearly free to 
duplicate, the actual price of software that will have tens of 
millions of copies sold can be made very small, while still being 
profitable, which is how Microsoft built up its billions of dollars 
in cash reserves.) Linux has the potential of commoditizing the 
desktop (and server) operating system.
    Similarly, Star Office has the potential of commoditizing the 
office suite. (Oddly enough, to compete against Netscape, Microsoft 
itself deliberately commoditized the web browser. They then followed 
by adding various proprietary extensions, such as ActiveX controls, 
which have only been moderately successful so far.)
    Therefore I believe that the primary focus of the settlement 
should be in assuring that open source software can compete fairly 
with Microsoft. This is done by assuring that Microsoft software is 
standards-compliant when possible, and that Microsoft's APIs, file 
formats, and network protocols are openly published. If this is 
done, then it follows that other proprietary software companies can 
compete as well. More important to me, it means that open source 
projects can compete. Also, it is important that computers can be 
shipped with non-Microsoft software installed.
    The most important of many changes I would make to the 
settlement as proposed is this: Microsoft should be required to 
publish without any licensing restrictions full documentation on all 
file formats, network protocols and APIs used by its current 
software or hardware. Further, they should publish formats, 
protocols and APIs used by future software or hardware at least two 
months before the release of that software or hardware.
    There should be no restrictions on this publication. It should 
not just be licensed to competing software companies, but just put 
up on a public web site and so on. There should be no restrictions 
due to security issues, either. There are no good reasons that, 
given a decent security model, the publication of format, protocol 
or API information should harm the security. In cases where it 
would, there is very little real security to begin with. To help 
enforce this, there should be clear and severe penalties for failing 
to publish.
    The second major change I would make is the addition of some 
form of punishment for past abuses, which does not seem to be part 
of the settlement at all.
    Thank you,
    Marc Shapiro
    Hey! [email protected] is changing to 
[email protected] soon
    Marc Shapiro, BaltoLUG, http://www.baltolug.org/, 
410-308-0199
    [email protected], 9 Cormer Ct. #302, Timonium MD 21093
    JHU, [email protected], 410-502-6207



MTC-00018085

From: Peter H. Putman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the decision that Microsoft has unfairly restricted 
competition by their ``tight'' and exclusionary bundling 
of operating systems and software.
    I would prefer to see the browser software offered as a 
completely separate product from any operating system. In addition, 
I would like to see all software code removed which automatically 
deletes icons from the desktop, restricts hardware upgrades to a 
system, and establishes preferences (without asking) for navigating 
to Internet sites and service providers.
    Peter H. Putman
    President
    ROAM Consulting, Inc.



MTC-00018086

From: Randy Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Per the provision of the Tunney Act I am making my voice heard. 
I oppose the REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT settlement (http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm) that the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft Corp. have reached in the case of the United 
States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit (Civil No. 98-1232.)



MTC-00018087

From: Andrew Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement in the US vs. Microsoft 
Corporation suit is wholly unacceptable. In many ways it will 
actually HELP Microsoft maintain its monopoly. It is painfully 
obvious (as any annoyed Windows user knows) that Microsoft is a 
monopoly and its lack of competition is nothing but bad for the 
consumer. Microsoft has used its status to leverage company after 
company out of existance. It is time to put a stop to it and the 
proposed settlement will do no such thing.
    Please reject the settlement.
    Andrew Burke
    Systems Administrator
    Univ. of Rochester
    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
    (The opinions expressed above are my own and not necessarily 
those of my employer)



MTC-00018088

From: Logan, Patrick D
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to you as an individual concerned about the illegal 
damage Microsoft has done and continues to do. I object to the 
recent settlement between Microsoft, the Bush administration, and 
some of the states. Clearly the settlement lets Microsoft off the 
hook after so many justices consirmed that significant antitrust 
violations were made by Microsoft.
    As a software developer, I want to see justice done, to restore 
a healthy software industry. Stronger actions must follow this 
conviction.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Logan



MTC-00018089

From: Josh Bauguss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to briefly address the proposed settlement that is 
currently in review. I firmly believe that what has been suggested 
is merely a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. It will do nothing to 
change the face of competition in the PC software industry.
    I wish to offer a little proof of this. Since they have been 
deemed a monopoly by our court system, they have continued their 
business practices. (It actually seems very apparent that they have 
accelerated them) In Windows XP, there is a simple feature of being 
able to look at zip files.
    Now, zip files have become a mainstay in computing and 
especially with transferring files over the internet. However, just 
like they did to Netscape with Internet Explorer, they just 
effectively made compression programs by a third party unnecessary. 
(i.e.. winzip.com, winace.com) These are two companies that I know 
of that do not have a bright future.
    There is then the issue of Microsoft Office. It has been the 
standard for desktop publishing for many years now. However, these 
programs use file formats that are proprietary. They change this 
file format with every upgrade to make it nearly impossible for 
third party office suites to be compatible. Computing has become 
something that is almost second nature in today's society. There 
should be no reason why I should not be able to choose which 
operating system or which desktop office suite I wish to use.
    Right now there really isn't a choice. If you want to do 
business and send people documents or other forms of correspondence, 
you are left with little choice but Windows and Microsoft Office. It 
has also become the norm that you must have the latest version of 
office in order for your documents to be viewable by others. (and 
likewise to view documents sent to you) I think there is a much 
better solution that can be worked. I don't think it would be fair 
necessarily to limit Microsoft's ability to do business.
    However, for certain things like Word documents or DirectX, 
these should become Open Standards. (look where having open 
standards in the pc hardware industry has gotten us. There is a 
level of competition

[[Page 26508]]

there that causes great innovation and offers nothing but great 
benefits to consumers) It should not matter what OS or what Office 
suite I choose to use. If I want to write a simple letter (other 
than an e-mail which thankfully is open) I should be able to send 
that letter to anybody I choose. That person should be able to open 
it easily. I shouldn't have to think twice about it.
    Another example I want to address is that of the gaming 
industry. This industry is left with little choice if they wish to 
make a product that has a chance to be profitable. They have been 
forced into writing games for Microsoft Windows and now they must 
use DirectX. While the DirectX standard is a good thing, such a 
standard should not be closed. If this were an open standard, any 
other OS maker could implement their own version of it. This would 
enable game makers to deploy their products without having to target 
an operating system. (and currently, if you want to make money, you 
MUST target Windows)
    We must empower the consumer. By giving them the choice to 
choose which OS they use, which Office suite they use, we can 
recreate competition which has really been lacking in the PC 
industry for over a decade. No business can currently start a 
software product without fearing that Microsoft will only brace and 
extend it, make it their own, and incorporate it somehow into their 
OS which is the monopoly part of their business.
    Microsoft can still benefit from well thought out solutions. A 
solution such as creating standards will make it possible for 
Microsoft to implement them in their own way. If consumers choose to 
go with Microsoft's solution, then that is good for them. However, 
consumers should not be forced into their choice.
    Thank you for your time,
    Josh Bauguss
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Josh Bauguss
    Web-Galleries
    www.Web-Galleries.com
    Tel: 505.891.8878
    Web-Galleries is offering the following services:
    Web Development
    Design & Programming
    Multimedia
    Video Productions
    Web Marketing
    Web Consulting
    Web Hosting
    Computer Networking & Repairs
    Print Design



MTC-00018090

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that a democratic state should not interfere in 
commercial issues but, if it needs to, it can never punish an 
enterprise in a way that would force it to give less quality 
services to its customers. And that's what's happening now: 
Microsoft is with its back against the wall just because it tried to 
give the best services and products to their users.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018091

From: Mitch Krayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:59pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse,
    The settlement is wrong. It does not compensate members of the 
injured class. It creates new damages to innocent parties, like 
Apple Computer.
    Please reject the settlement as it now stands and find a more 
effective way to punish Microsoft.
    Microsoft is not taking this trial or the guilty finding 
seriously.
    They have done little to change their business behavior. In fact 
they flaunt their will, in the computer trade press and in the way 
the do business with partners, despite their wrong doing.
    They have shown little regard for past settlements. This 
settlement will not alter their behavior in any significant way 
either.
    It does not provide a remedy to the injured classes.
    This makes a mockery of your court and the entire process of 
anti-trust justice.
    Thank you,
    Mitch Krayton
    Mitch Krayton, Sales & Marketing
    1st K I O S K
    24307 Magic Mountain Parkway, #245
    Valencia, CA 91355 USA
    661-297-9150 voice * 661-297-4044 fax
    [email protected]
    1st K I O S K
    Your 1st Choice for Interactive Kiosks & Dynamic Digital 
Displays
    Home of 1stTouch(tm), iPedestal(tm) and KlearKiosk(tm)
    http://www.1stKiosk.com/
    I pledge allegiance to the United States of America,
    one nation, indivisible, with freedom and justice for all.
    Take the pledge and pass it on...



MTC-00018092

From: G.Richard Raab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    G. Richard Raab



MTC-00018093

From: Jim Cromie
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/23/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    Ive just read an interview with Judge Robert Bork, where he 
says.. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/4020/2/ 
``My initial response was, break ``em up,'' he 
replied. ``A structural remedy. Dissolution into parts that 
could compete with each other. ``But that seems to be not in 
the cards now; I don't think the judge is going to do that if the 
government doesn't ask for it, and may not do it even if the 
government did ask for it.
    ``That's not going to happen, so I think we're stuck with a 
behavioral remedy which would have to be-even if it tried to 
do something, even if it tried-hard to write because as the 
technology changed Microsoft has shown a great ingenuity in getting 
around things in the past. But whatever difficulties there would be 
in a properly drawn behavioral remedy, this is not a properly drawn 
one.''
    ``And I think it gives it a clear road to further 
monopolies. They can do to all kinds of products now what they did 
to the browser.'' ``What's likely to come out if it? I 
have no idea. It depends entirely upon how seriously the judge takes 
this thing. I hope she doesn't share the government's evident desire 
just to kick the thing away and get rid of it. This is a painful 
case-I don't think Judge Jackson wanted to see it again. It's 
a lot of work, and it's hard to understand, and if she takes the 
line that ``if the government's satisfied, the hell with 
it,'' then it's all over. I don't know her well enough to know 
how she'll react.''
    As Im sure youre aware, Judge Bork is not known for being a 
judicial activist.
    There is no political axe being ground by him. The Government 
won their case in open court, and now it must pursue proper 
remedies.
    According to the Court of Appeals ruling, ``a remedies 
decree in an antitrust case must seek to ``unfetter a market 
from anticompetitive conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal 
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future'' (section V.D., p. 99).
    To fail to do so leaves the DOJ open to suspicions of back-room 
dealings between the politicians (the DOJ in this case) and the 
politically connected. Whether or not it happened is irrelevant, the 
public perception, particularly in light of the Enron debacle, will 
not look favorably upon a weak settlement.

[[Page 26509]]

    Thank you.
    James Cromie



MTC-00018094

From: David Cortesi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case is 
DEFICIENT as written.
    Any remedy MUST create conditions under which small companies 
and individuals can design and sell new software without fear that 
Microsoft can, at its arbitrary choosing, preempt and swamp their 
business with free software ``integrated'' into the 
Microsoft system.
    If this condition is not met, soon the only innovation in 
technology will be the innovation that Microsoft permits to exist.
    Thank you,
    David Cortesi
    [email protected]



MTC-00018095

From: Bovy, Stephen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Bovy



MTC-00018096

From: Bill Repke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Repke
    System Administrator
    Costa Mesa, California



MTC-00018097

From: Bovy, Stephen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Grace Pang Bovy



MTC-00018098

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say, that I consider the the proposed 
Settlement with Microsoft to be lacking to the point of absurdity. 
It doesn't make nearly enough provisions to prevent the continuation 
of (or future) anticompetitive practices.
    Chris Hostetter
    Software Engineer
    [email protected]
    415.344.2212
    235 Second Street
    San Francisco CA 94105



MTC-00018099

From: Jason Woolever
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please note: I think the settlement is a bad idea.
    Jason Woolever
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Sr. R&D Engineer
    Synopsys, Inc.



MTC-00018100

From: Nick Calton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001 ,
    I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed 
final settlement as allowed by the Tunney Act. I have been a 
programmer, mostly for Windows and Unix, for these past five years. 
Of late I have primarily adopted the Java programming language. I am 
strongly against the Proposed Final Judgement, on several grounds. I 
feel that while it may be corrective, it is no way punitive, and 
Microsoft has made its empire with criminal behavior. Even if the 
proposed remedy halts future transgressions, it does nothing to 
punish Microsoft for the means of acquiring its wealth. I would like 
to see monumentally large fines levied against it, the government 
should do what they think best with the money.
    I think the PFJ falls down though even with regard to reining in 
future bad behavior in several places, please allow me to mention a 
few specifically. First, in not requiring Microsoft to fully 
document all of its file formats, so that binary compatibility could 
be made much easier by competitors.
    Second, in not requiring that MS disclose its software patents 
regarding the Windows API, this could allow them to pretend to offer 
a level playing field, but later they could sandbag the competition 
who may have sank resources into attempting to compete in a software 
field owned by Microsoft patents. I'm specifically thinking of Mono 
and .NET here. Quite frankly if it were up to me I would require 
Microsoft to release all of its software patents in the most 
contested fields

[[Page 26510]]

into the public domain. If it were up to me there would be no 
software patents at all. All of the ones I have seen, except the 
patent for the RSA encryption technology, now expired, have seemed 
obvious. At the least, it can be seen that they are inherently anti-
competitive.
    Third, and I'll stop here and thank you for reading this far, as 
mentioned by Dan Kegel whose excellent critique of the PFJ can be 
found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html , the PFJ allows 
Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs that ship PCs with competing 
operating systems, such as Linux, but without a Microsoft operating 
system. As I understand it, this would hurt OEMs ability to provide 
the public with a PC of their choice and the operating system of 
their choice. This is the very definition of anti competitive 
behavior, and I feel that a future draft should most certainly 
anticipate and prevent this, and that this current version of the 
PFJ must not be allowed to stand.
    Thank you,
    Nicholas Calton
    New York, New York
    Student, Columbia University



MTC-00018101

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done more harm to consumers then any company 
before. It has stymied research and development other then it's own 
products. It has killed competition through illegal business 
practices. It has been branded an illegal monopoly. Their business 
practices are deplorable. They do all they can to prevent consumers 
having any other choice then Microsoft. These practices should not 
be rewarded but come to a harsh end. People living in a so called 
free country should have real choices and not have to be faced with 
a modern variant of Hobson's choice.
    They are an illegal monopoly with unethical business views, they 
should be punished, not rewarded.
    Sincerely,
    N Heikamp
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018102

From: Jonathan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The current proposal for the Microsoft settlement will not 
prevent Microsoft from staying a monopoly in the computer industry. 
Microsoft employees are spreading this around as ``..a victory 
over the government.'' If the government shows they are 
incapable or unwilling to stop Microsofts monopoly over the software 
industry, who else is there to stand in Microsofts way?
    Since the trial has started Microsofts grip on ISP's and 
hardware vendors has slowly loosend up for fear of how it would be 
represented in the case against them. Once Microsoft accepts the 
current settlement they will go back to their previous methods of 
forcing the industry to accept their software and force out 
competitors, but it is not their previous methods the software 
industry is only worried about. By recieving the current settlement 
this will show the industry that even the government and it's laws 
cannot stop Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft will be able to expand 
their practices beyond strict EULA's, enforcing proprietary 
``standards'' and harrassing/buying out small companies. 
They will be able to stretch more laws, find more loopholes and 
choose more ``un-ethical'' business means knowing that the 
most powerful system that could have stopped them was not powerful 
enough.
    Once again I say that the DOJ and US government should be 
putting a stop to Microsoft's monopoly. By forcing them to release 
their file formats, source code, protocols or something similar that 
will allow other companies to compete with them. But the current 
settlement simply shows that the government no longer has the power 
to enforce the laws that control our capitalist country.
    Thank you,
    Jonathan Ard



MTC-00018103

From: Todd Eshler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea.
    Thank you
    Todd Eshler



MTC-00018104

From: Juan Lang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed final judgment against 
Microsoft. I have signed Dan Kegel's open letter, as it addressed 
many points I had not considered. However, I felt that adding my own 
words was also important.
    The main problem I see with the proposed judgment is that it 
only seems to protect competing companies. However, this misses a 
key point of the software industry: competition can come from 
competing software products that do not necessarily produce revenue. 
Two key products that pose serious competition to Microsoft are Wine 
and Samba. Both allow Windows-compatible applications to run on non-
Windows platforms. The leaders of both projects have expressed 
concern that their ability to continue could be significantly 
threatened under the terms of the proposed final judgment. The 
judgment does try to protect access to APIs, which could protect 
competing software products regardless of whether they produce 
revenue. However, the definitions of APIs were written such that the 
above mentioned products, and others, might be precluded from 
accessing them. I am writing this because I am concerned that 
without access to these APIs, the software industry itself is 
threatened. The company for whom I work depends on open source 
products in order to achieve the gross margins it does. At previous 
companies, this has also been true. Restricting free products'' 
ability to compete, as I believe the proposed final judgment does, 
restricts the software industry's competitiveness while enhancing 
Microsoft's position in the marketplace. Such an outcome is clearly 
not in the interest of the American public.
    Sincerely,
    Juan Lang
    Director of Software Engineering
    Cranite Systems, Inc.



MTC-00018105

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it necessary to take time out of my busy schedule to 
comment on this case which is of dire importance, especially with 
respect to the entirety of the computer world. The foundation of our 
society in this day and age, the very progress of science, rest very 
much upon this issue.
    Microsoft is the greatest singular contributor to the means by 
which knowledge is distributed and disseminated across the word. 
Mind you, their software underlies a considerable portion of the 
internet, the very way by which this e-mail was delivered. By virtue 
of their profits alone, it is clear no other company has delivered 
so many essential and comprehensive software solutions. It is clear 
that the companies that stand to gain from any punishment of 
Microsoft all produced inferior products-the free market place 
made this abundantly clear. It would be impossible to rationally say 
that Microsoft prevented competition-so long as an arm of the 
government wasn't coercing people to use Microsoft's software. And 
indeed, this was not the case, the computer industry is one of the 
few havens from which the government had abstained taking such 
power, while Microsoft progressed ever higher, by viture of it's 
SOFTWARE alone.
    I'm certain that you will receive a great many e-mail in support 
of GREATER punishment from Microsoft, especially those involved in 
computer/technical fields. The proposition of any further damning 
settlement, and even of the punishment Microsoft themselves proposed 
is a reprehensible perversion of morality. While I am myself seeking 
a degree in Computer Science-I must warn you that the words of 
the others involved in computers do not speak for the masses for 
whom I so speak, and for whom Microsoft has always aimed its 
products. Those who are involved in computers and oppose Microsoft 
have agendas behind their actions, with no moral or ethical basis 
for their arguments. They despise Microsoft because it is TOO good, 
and (for some) it threatens their jobs by making it possible for 
even a mediocre computer technician to handle what otherwise would 
be a task requiring exceeding technical expertise. This is analogous 
to a group of mathematicians asking the government to punish Texas 
Instruments for making calculators because they make advanced math 
problems more accessible to even those of a much lesser intellectal 
capacity. Other's motivation may be simply that with Microsoft's 
continued

[[Page 26511]]

existence, their own mediocrity cannot stand a chance. Whatever new 
fields arise in the computer industry, it is sure that Microsoft 
will make it's best attempts pushing forth its best minds to forge 
onward with innovative new solutions. If, however, they are punished 
then those inferior solutions presented by much lesser companies 
will serve only to stagnate progress, and allow the mediocrites to 
bring the world down to their level.
    I would now like to make a short analogy, and state that this is 
especially true because a company is not a faceless entity (as so 
many claim) but is a collaboration of individual minds seeking a 
specific objective, one which always entails fulfilling their 
customer's needs- by necessity of existence and motive of 
profit. Now considering that a company is INDEED comprised of 
individuals it is therefore an extension of their individual rights 
to pursue wealth. Thus I would say this settlement is akin in EVERY 
facet to finding the person of most haughty moral status, and taking 
them into a courtroom-and terribly decrying their 
deeds-NOT because they weren't virtuous deeds, indeed-I 
mean to say that their deeds were of the MOST virtuous type, but yet 
to decry them because their basking in the limelight of extreme 
virtue has prevented the morally inferior and lesser persons from 
having a chance in such light. This is the perversion of ANY 
settlement against Microsoft. Therefore I thoroughly oppose any and 
ALL settlements aside from an apology to Microsoft for the damage 
already caused by the likes of the United States 
government-not on behalf of the people, but on behalf of those 
who are only jealous of Microsoft's sucess.
    Thank you.
    Justin Wilson
    815 4th St. Apt 7
    Bowling Green, OH 43402



MTC-00018106

From: Nick Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hash: SHA1
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Forrest N. Austin
    1624 Burrows
    San Francisco, CA 94134



MTC-00018107

From: Jon Rust
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed MS settlement is not nearly enough, and just 
completely misses some of the very reasons why MS is a monopoly. 
Here are just a few of my problems with it:
    + MS apparently had a big voice in deciding what definitions be 
applied to API, Middleware, etc. For example, although MS is touting 
their ``.NET'' initiative as a replacement for Java, Java 
and .NET are classified in completely different categories. How can 
that be? Outlook Express and Outlook, which are very similar 
products, are in different categories. Allowing them these leeways 
will only increase their grip on the market.
    + Entire Windows OS versions have been excluded from the 
official classification of Windows OS. These OS's that were excluded 
are so closely related, many applications can run on them and the 
Official Windows OS's unchanged.
    + Although undocumented file formats formed part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry, no where is MS required to make file 
formats more open.
    + Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    There are many other shortcomings in the Settlement that need to 
be addressed. Please do address them, or this will just be another 
slap on the wrist to MS, similar to the one in the early 90's (that 
MS totally ignored).
    Thanks,
    Jon Rust
    VCNet, Inc



MTC-00018108

From: Mike McClelland
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wonder how much of our government has already been bought by 
Microsoft. Prolly makes ENRON look 2-bit.



MTC-00018109

From: Leif Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe Microsoft needs a harsher punishment, the current 
settlement isn't enough.
    Leif Myers



MTC-00018110

From: Bryan Stalcup
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:02pm
Subject: the settlement with microsoft
    the settlement proposal is horrible.
    microsoft will continue to expand and control more markets if 
they are not halted here. they should have the browser broken off 
into a separate company, with the original company banned from 
making a browser. they should also be forced to document all file 
formats and protocols thoroughly, i.e., no more proprietary file 
formats or protocols.
    bryan stalcup
    --
    bryan stalcup
    technophile
    classic graphics
    charlotte, nc
    704.597.9015



MTC-00018111

From: Hasan Muhammad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is an ineffective remedy.
    Hasan Muhammad



MTC-00018112

From: Geff Underwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hash: SHA1
    I disapprove of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. It will not do anywhere near enough to punish 
Microsoft's crimes, or to prevent future offenses. I agree with Dan 
Kegel's analysis, which can be found on the web at .



MTC-00018113

From: Roberto Dohnert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the major problem with the Microsoft suit is that 
Microsoft wishes to give away free computers and software. by doing 
this you are giving them an open door to invade the one market where 
they dont have Monopoly power. Even tho I think it is a great 
gesture for them to offer to do this for the poor schools. I think 
this needs to be an industry effort more than the job of 1 company. 
A company that has broke the law and continues to do so.



MTC-00018114

From: William R. Mussatto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:01pm
Subject: RE: Proposed Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement would encourage Microsoft to 
continue the behavior for which it has been found guilty. Requiring 
Microsoft to provide its software to schools would put the schools 
at its mercy since it can, at any time, render the software and 
hardware obsolete and unsupportable. It has just done this with 
Windows 95 (interestingly, just after the courts removed breakup as 
a remedy). My recent upgrade from windows 95 to windows 2000 require 
extensive replacement of hardware, even though the test program, 
provided by microsoft assured me that no hardware upgrades would be 
required. Reverting to windows 95 was not an option unless I 
completely reformatted the hard drives. Do we want to put schools 
through this?
    Schools are one of the few areas where Microsoft faces 
significant competition. The proposed settlement would allow them to 
increase their marketshare, thus further rewarding their 
monopolistic behavior. A better alternative would be to require the 
company to fund the computers and allow them to chose between 
Microsoft's competitors, specifically excluding Microsoft software. 
This would compensate the competitors and increase, not decrease 
future competition.
    Unless the performance part of the settlement includes 
provisions to specifically block the kinds of integration which was 
found to be in violation of law (i.e., browser, and in the case of 
XP sound and multi-media) Microsoft will continue to use its

[[Page 26512]]

desktop monopoly to exend its reach into the area of servers. They 
should be required to recall XP and remove this integration, since 
the OS was built after they had been found guilty of the initial 
breach. Failure to do so again is rewarding their continued illegal 
activity.
    The company I work for hosts web sites. The various flavors of 
Internet Explorer (beginning with 4.x) have difficulty connecting to 
a non-microsoft secure web server (in our case apache-SSL). This is 
because they fail to follow internet standards for this connection 
(timingout early, or late depending on the version). Rather than 
reporting that the browser failed, they report that the web site is 
down. I find it interesting that this failure only effects web 
severs who pose a significant threat to Microsoft's ability to 
expand into the server market.
    When faced with an adverse court ruling in their case with Sun 
concerning java, they stopped supporting a common standard when the 
courts ruled that they could NOT manipulate the standard to increase 
their market share but had to compete on a level playing field.
    I hope that you will take this into consideration.
    The opinion expressed are my own and in no way reflect those of 
my employer. I can be reached at 276 E. Green St. Claremont CA 
91711.
    You are specifically enjoined not to release any personal 
information to a non-DOJ party. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    William Mussatto, Senior Systems Engineer
    ph. 909-920-9154 ext. 27



MTC-00018115

From: Bovy, Stephen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement a government rollover !!!!
    The Settlement sucks !!!
    What ever happened to the founding fathers concept of the 
``balance of power''
    The government is no longer in control !!!
    Now a days the government is a paltry ruber stamp patsy For un-
accountable uncontrollable greedy corporate empires.. Microsoft is 
the ultimate example .... Microsoft and Enron are bussum buddies. 
Both are symptomatic of the fact that, there is nothing And know one 
to hold back or restrain the power Corporations have. There is no 
longer a balance of power .... Remember one thing Absolute power 
corupts absolutely. Even the puffed up pridefull misconcieved 
perception Of absolute power gurantees that sinfull coruptible men 
Will fall into temtation.
    Microsoft and Enron two peas in a pod.......
    Both grew out of the same pot of greedy selfishness.



MTC-00018116

From: Jason D. Kelleher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
More importantly, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions redress their 
previous abuses or compensate the affected parties. This, in my 
opinion, goes against the very foundation of law.
    The provisions within the settlement only formalize the status 
quo in their strictest interpretation and at worst increase the 
monopoly power of Microsoft. None of the provisions effectively 
prohibit Microsoft from abusing its monopoly position in the 
operating system market. This is especially important in view of the 
seriousness of Microsoft's past transgressions. If a person or 
organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those 
acts, and then receive as a punishment instructions not to commit 
those acts again, there is no incentive to follow those 
instructions. That is not justice. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached quickly is understandable, it is wrong to 
approve an unjust settlement merely for the sake of expediency.
    Sincerely,
    Jason D. Kelleher
    314 Christina Mill Dr
    Newark, DE 19711



MTC-00018117

From: RFC-822=hbarrett@lsanca1-
ar2-000-125.lsanca1-dsl.gtei.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    While I am not an attorney, I wanted to take the time to convey 
that I DO NOT AGREE with the proposed Microsoft settlement. The 
settlement needs to be written from the ground up.
    HOPEFULLY, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL HEAR OUR WORDS AND RE-
WRITE THE ENTIRE SETTLEMENT!
    Harry Barrett
    Canyon Country, Ca.
    United States Citizen
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018118

From: Eric George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the inadequacy 
of the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    My largest concern is that of software compatibility between 
Windows-based systems and future Windows-compatible operating 
systems. The requirement to publish Windows APIs is flawed. As we 
have seen again and again, Microsoft is capable and willing to say 
one thing and do another, leaving the door open for 
``published'' APIs to be irrelevant or constantly out of 
date.
    The only way to be sure of compatibility is to require Microsoft 
(or another entity) to create a compatibility test suite based on 
the published APIs. The ability to use the ``Made for 
Windows'' logo (or other branding) would then be dependent on 
conformance to the test suite, and not merely the published APIs. 
This test conformance would apply to Microsoft as well as 
competitors and would give competitive operating system vendors a 
true, testable baseline on which to base their products.
    In addition, the test suite should be accessible by any software 
vendor for a minimal cost, and Microsoft should not be allowed to 
release a test suite and new software so quickly together as to keep 
competitors from utilizing the test suite. Perhaps a moratorium on 
software releases for a reasonable time after a new version of the 
test suite is released.
    Eric George
    [email protected]
    hm: 720-855-0484
    cell: 720-231-2335



MTC-00018119

From: Keith Copenhagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow Microsoft to continue to flaunt the laws 
protecting consumers.
    Microsoft is unlawfully using it's monopoly to avoid 
competition, (overwriting suffix links, avoiding the dual boot). It 
is clear to me that Microsoft will use every tool, unethically and 
unlawfully to dominate every market it enters.
    I feel that any claims of standardization and market cohesion 
are misleading, and simply rewrite history from the view the 
monopoly strangling any alternatives.
    The proposed settlement is a clear example of using the legal 
wrangling to force-feed Microsoft products into the schools 
regardless of existing needs or educational value.
    Microsoft does not deserve the overarching market position it 
has brutally acquired, I think we would all be better served if the 
Anti-trust laws were applied to the robber barons of the information 
age.
    Keith Copenhagen
    Copenhagen Technical Services
    California, USA



MTC-00018120

From: Sten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
    o The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    o Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even

[[Page 26513]]

contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    o The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    o The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    o The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    o The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    o The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    o The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    o The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    o The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    o The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    o The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    o The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    o Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source applications from running on Windows.
    o Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows applications from running on competing operating systems.
    o Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    o The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    o Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    o The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    o The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    o The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs 
-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    o The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    o The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Sten Michael Drescher
    Software Support Engineer, IBM
    PO Box 18371
    Austin, TX 78760-8371



MTC-00018121

From: Matthew T Reinke (Humphrey Bogart)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is Bad
    I think the proposed Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. I hope 
you will take my opinion and those of others into account when 
making your decisions.
    Matthew Reink



MTC-00018122

From: matt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i believe the proposed settlement is bad idea! it would hurt the 
consumer and be bad for america. microsoft is a monopoly something 
must be done!



MTC-00018123

From: maurice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a slap in the face of every American citizen! 
Not only is this a ``slap'' on the wrist for microsoft, 
it's actually more of a ``pat on the back''... The whole 
settlement is like a back-room deal made by some ``good old 
boys'' and then spun to look like a punishment at first glance. 
I feel that this is the type of issue that gives the youth of this 
nation the idea that it's alright to be ``underhanded'' as 
long as you can afford the lawyers and lobby the right law makers 
once caught breaking the rules. I feel completely let down by the 
federal judicial system at this time-please be sure to do the 
right thing and make microsoft accountable to the law.
    Maurice P.
    Buckfield ME
    Technology Manager



MTC-00018124

From: Paul Michael Reilly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to, even at this late date, implore the DOJ to 
reject the settlement and pursue even stronger remedies against 
Microsoft. Microsoft has shown time and again that it knows of only 
one way to do business -- to exploit it's Windows monopoly 
with abandon to crush, eliminate, or in any way conceivable to 
remove competition from the markets it chooses to enter. The 
findings of fact of the lower court are indisputable. What is 
disputable is that the settlement will have any effect whatsoever on 
the conduct of Microsoft's business practices.
    As a small software business executive, I implore you to look to 
my welfare and create a level playing field so that my company and 
millions more like mine have a chance to grow and thrive lest we are 
eliminated once Redmond's radar sees us as a threat.
    Sincerely,
    Paul M. Reilly
    President and CEO
    Pajato Systems Group



MTC-00018125

From: Stahl Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Historically monopolies have have bad for the country regardless 
of the product sold. Never in the history of the World has one 
company held as much market share of what has become a necessary 
tool. Allow me a few points about the proposed settlement.
    When you win a point, you don't surrender to the other side. The 
settlement is basically this action
    Allowing such a monopoly to continue can only be bad for the 
country in the long term. Yes, disolving Microsift might hurt in the 
short term. Better we all take our medicine now, and get it over 
with.
    Microsoft is a bad corporate citizen. In every court judgment it 
has been given it has whined, dragged it feet and, broken the 
agreement before the lawyers have gotten out of the courthouse. Why 
do you expect this pattern of behavior will change? A settlement 
will not work in the best interest of the people. Microsoft 
``promises'' are not worth the ink they are signed with.
    Microsoft has behaved in a criminal manner. Since when do 
criminals get to set their own ``punishment''?
    Garry Stahl
    6940 Mead Dearborn, MI



MTC-00018126

From: James E. Flemer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the proposed settlement inadequate in protecting the 
public interest. The terms are far to weak in several areas, 
providing far too many loop holes and exclusions. The definition of 
API and ``middleware'' simply do not cover all that should 
be. The

[[Page 26514]]

exclusions to ``middleware'' in Definition J are far too 
broad, specifically excluding patches, service packs, and updates 
from ``Windows Update''. The definition of 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' excludes Microsoft 
Outlook, Microsoft.NET, and Microsoft Office, three significant 
products that Microsoft has and will use to maintain their monopoly.
    Several other topics are excluded such as the publication of all 
proprietary file formats, and several instances of EULA that 
prohibit the use of products on non-Microsoft operating systems.
    Please tighten up the loop holes in the settlement. This 
settlement is intended to protect the public interest, but that will 
certainly not be the case if Microsoft can simply sidestep the 
stipulations of the settlement, and continue its unfair practices.
    Thank you,
    -James Flemer
    Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
    Troy, NY



MTC-00018127

From: theflame
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S.D.O.J:
    I really think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I 
encourage you to do the right thing and throw it out.
    Derek L. Ramsey
    Philadelphia, PA



MTC-00018128

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Hesse and Associates:
    One could (and I believe some have) written enough on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement to fill a book. You have undoubtedly 
been made aware of the details of these complaints so I will keep my 
comments brief.
    1. The proposed settlement does not address the main issue of 
the case - namely, that Microsoft used illegal and 
anticompetitve business practices to achieve and maintain a virtual 
monopoly. The settlement does nothing to address the damage done to 
the market nor does it prevent the continuance or repetition of 
these practices.
    2. Not only does the settlement fail to address past and present 
behavior, but I fear that its general impotence will only encourage 
Microsoft and others to continue to flout the law and to seek 
revenge on those who have testified against them.
    3. If accepted, the proposed settlement will be a public 
relations fiasco. The Justice Department under John Ashcroft will be 
seen as ``soft on crime'' at best. The abrupt change in 
direction in this case following Ashcroft's appointment may well be 
linked to campaign donations and presented as evidence of 
corruption. (There are courts other than those of law, and some of 
them will accept rumors as evidence). The Ashcroft 
administration-and by extension, perhaps the 
President's-will be viewed as being for sale The software 
industry as a whole already views the American court system as 
generally corrupt and untrustworthy, and this proposal will only 
strengthen that perception.
    It is my hope that this travesty of a settlement will be 
rejected.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Harris



MTC-00018129

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is ridiculous. I'm a Computer Science 
professor, and continued advancement of this field as a science 
requires that anyone with a good idea be able to have access to the 
market and get investors to support it. Microsoft's behaviour, which 
was found illegal (a finding which was upheld by the appeals court), 
has already had a significant quelling effect on those with new 
ideas trying to begin new companies and advance the state of the 
art. As proposed, the settlement will contribute nothing toward 
opening up the computer business further and allowing new and 
smaller companies to get the oxygen they need to live.
    Those at Microsoft have clearly decided that they do not care 
about the advancement of computing as a science, or advancement of 
the computing industry, so long as their own profits remain in 
place. They would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
    Please do not cave in, and allow their vision of only one 
operating system, controlled by only one company, to stifle the 
computing field. One hundred years ago, London was the most 
important financial center on earth. Now it is New York. If 
Microsoft has their way, twenty years from now it will be Tokyo. 
Don't make the judgment which lets that happen.
    Darren Provine / [email protected]



MTC-00018130

From: (u)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop microsoft.
    They are destroying us all.
    Where once I could get a $40/hr job in one hour, I have now been 
unemployed for over a year. Why? Because Microsoft technology has 
taken over the market, and being a unix person, there is nothing 
left for me, even though my state-sponsored school insisted 
everything would be Unix.
    Thanks for nothing.
    If the supreme court has any sense of justice, microsoft will be 
broken up. One OS? I don't think so.



MTC-00018131

From: Roy Pollock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional software developer, I am very concerned with 
the proposed Microsoft settlement and how it will impact the global 
software market.
    I am concerned by the apparent lack of enforcement provisions in 
the current settlement. Without giving the oversight commitee the 
power to impose restrictions without a legal battle, we are 
basically back in the same position, except Microsoft has grown even 
bigger and exerts even more leverage to assimilate or destroy 
rivals.
    Thank you,
    Roy Pollock
    Software Developer, Green Hills Software
    Santa Barbara, CA



MTC-00018132

From: Peschko, Edward
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:02pm
Subject: tunney act-settlement proposal by government
    To whom it may concern:
    I read, with deep horror, the DOJ-Microsoft proposed 
``settlement'' to US vs Microsoft. Microsoft has basically 
killed any competition in my industry (I work as an independent 
consultant, constantly trying to dodge microsoft products and 
failing), was shown to do so both in Judge Jackson's court, and in 
the court of appeals, and shows absolutely no sign of changing any 
of their business practices to help restore competition in the 
industry. And yet they just might get away with a ``slap on the 
wrist''-the DOJ has proposed a consent-decree like 
settlement, when Microsoft has ignored all consent-decrees in the 
past. In addition, the consent decree is so loosely worded that 
Microsoft could follow it to the letter and not change a thing about 
their business practices.
    Anyways, I-and pretty much the rest of the computer 
industry not affiliated with Microsoft-implore your office to 
please deeply consider both the wording and the effect that the 
settlement would have on an industry already woefully devoid of 
competition. We cannot afford to have one entity run roughshod over 
what should be highly competitive-namely the computing 
infrastructure of this country. And that is what is going to happen 
if Microsoft is not given severe enough punishment for its 
crime-it will leverage its monopoly in the desktop arena and 
office applications to try to reach a monopoly in home computing 
appliances (ie: xbox), computing services (.NET), palm appliances 
(PocketPC), and so on. And even if they fail in doing so, their 
business practices in the past ensure that they will greatly harm 
the remaining competition-and the weak economy will only serve 
to help Microsoft crush the competition better, and further 
consolidate an already too-consolidated industry. So the settlement 
proposed does not go nearly far enough-the dissenting states 
are more on the right track.
    Ed
    (ps-as an independent consultant I am not affiliated with 
any of the parties that testified at trial. And I'd be happy to 
expound on the opinion mentioned-if you want, I can be reached 
at 650.464.2156)



MTC-00018133

From: Greg Shrack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:

[[Page 26515]]

    As a US citizen, I would like to express my views on the 
proposed Final Judgement in the United States vs. Microsoft 
Settlement. I have been in the software development field for 7 
years. I have felt for many years that Microsoft has monopolistic 
market positions and tendencies, and has continued these practices 
even through the current anti-trust investigations. I believe that 
these practices have hindered innovation and hurt consumers and 
businesses.
    In general, I thing that the proposed Final Judgement is too 
soft on Microsoft and will not resolve the anti-trust issues at all.
    In particular:
    * Section 3.A.2 of the proposed Final Judgement appears to 
prevent Microsoft from strong-arming OEMs that ship dual-boot 
machines, but offers no protection for OEMs shipping a single-boot 
machines that do not boot to Microsoft Windows.
    * Definition K of the proposed Final Judgement covers 
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, but does not affect Microsoft's 
.NET strategy. .NET, and the C# language specifically, appear to 
be designed to woo existing Java programmers with a minimum of new 
training. While C# is a documented standard, Microsoft's 
standard method of operation is to extend the standard with 
Microsoft-only features which eliminate any opportunity for inter-
operability. If C# becomes as widely accepted as C++ or Java, I 
fully expect that there will quickly be divergent ``Microsoft 
C#'' and ``Standard C#'' implementations.
    * There appears to be no solution to the issue of Microsoft 
proprietary file formats in the proposed Final Judgement. This is 
huge hindrance, as more and more email attachments are being sent as 
Microsoft Word documents, etc. File formats were covered in the 
``Applications Barrier to Entry'' section of the 
``Findings of Fact''.
    These are just three of the issues that I was immediately drawn 
to in the proposed Final Judgement. I am also very concerned with 
Microsoft's continuing efforts to extend their stranglehold on US 
consumers and businesses including: * New Microsoft XP licensing 
schemes which may raise costs for US consumers and businesses. As 
part of the XP licensing, consumers will not be allowed to load 
multiple copies of XP on their own hardware. And licensing costs may 
increase for 59% of businesses (see article in CIO magazine, 
``Software Licensing Debate'',
    http://www2.cio.com/research/surveyreport.cfm?id=50)
    * Microsoft's forays into home entertainment (UltimateTV, XBox)
    * Microsoft's new effort to be at the center of the Internet 
(.NET and Passport)
    Thank you for reviewing my opinions. I hope that any Final 
Judgement in the United States vs. Microsoft trial will be carefully 
considered.
    Greg Shrack
    15140 Jessie Drive
    Colorado Springs, CO 80921
    [email protected]



MTC-00018134

From: Joshua D. Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case 
is UNACCEPTABLE. It does little to prevent the future use of their 
unfair and unlawful business practices, and nothing at all to punish 
their past arrogance and greed. Every one of the handful of 
antitrust trials brought against Microsoft in the last decade has 
established the same thing: that Microsoft, in one or another of its 
markets, has used illegal practices to gain an unfair advantage or 
force competitors out of business. I, and millions of others, are 
tired of paying artificially inflated prices for insecure, bug-
riddled software from a *convicted* monopolist. We can NOT allow 
Microsoft off this time with a mere slap on the wrist. They have 
committed great wrongs and caused great harm to the PC software 
market; the punishment must be equally as great. They must be made 
to pay reparations to the system vendors and internet providers 
which they have entangled in dictatorial contracts, and to the 
businesses, schools, and individuals whom they have bilked with 
outrageous licensing schemes and inflated prices. Microsoft owes an 
immesurable amount of its ill-gotten fortune to corporations such as 
Netscape, Digital Research, Stac Electronics, Symantec, and a host 
of other companies long since vanished-all due to MS'' 
blatantly selfish and anticompetitive dealings. The era of Microsoft 
arrogance and dominance must end, and it must end NOW.
    Joshua D. Clark
    a concerned citizen



MTC-00018135

From: David Charlap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree strongly with the propsed settlement that is about to 
be used against Microsoft. It is far far too weak to have any impact 
on the industry.
    Microsoft has signed several consent agreements with the DoJ 
over the past decade, and they have violated many of them. This is 
not in question-it was proven in court during their antitrust 
hearings. Because of their past history of violating consent 
agreements, they can not be trusted to adhere to any new consent 
agreements. Your proposed remedy does nothing to change Microsoft's 
business practices. The people responsible for their anticompetitive 
behavior will remain in charge of the company, and their monopoly 
market position remains in place. Asking them to stop will 
accomplish nothing, because they have already disregarded several 
other past consent agreements. In other words, I believe that the 
propsed remedy will be completely ineffective. Microsoft will 
provide only token compliance with it, and will blantantly disregard 
any aspect that it considers overly restrictive. Any attempt by the 
government to prevent them from doing this will be ineffective, 
since all such procedures will very be time consuming. During the 
time it takes for the government to punish Microsoft for violating 
the terms of this agreement, they can run competitors completely out 
of business.
    I believe that the only solution that will permenantly curb 
Microsoft's repeated abuses and contempt for the legal system is to 
either break the company up into three divisions (operating systems, 
development software, and application software), or to remove all 
senior officers from their positions of power. I believe that the 
public is best served by the former remedy.
    - David



MTC-00018136

From: Andrew Louis Perez-Lopez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern:
    I have read the documents associated with the Microsoft anti-
trust case. As a user of a non-Microsoft operating system, I feel 
that more should be done to allow for the interoperation of non-
Microsoft operating systems with Windows, and also with programs, 
particularly the MS Office Suite. I'm not sure what the best 
solution would be, but I have personally seen the effects of closed 
file formats on operating systems. I have known people who have been 
prevented from trying non-Windows operating systems by the fear of 
not being able to run MS Office. They need to run MS Office, because 
none of the many freely available word processing systems can 
properly understand Microsoft's closed file formats. If these 
formats were to be publicly documented, then free alternatives could 
support the files, and other operating systems would not be unfairly 
disadvantaged. In light of this, I think more needs to be done 
before Microsoft is let off the hook for years of anticompetitive 
business practices that have put so many companies out of business. 
That said, I want to thank you all for working diligently on my 
behalf in this matter. I am confident that you will be able to come 
up with a new agreement that better serves the public interest and 
that will make Microsoft play fair and allow it to succeed by 
excellence, innovation and competition rather than dishonest 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Perez-Lopez
    Charlottesville, VA



MTC-00018137

From: Ocie Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to briefly state my objections to the proposed 
final judgement (PFJ) between the doj and Microsoft.
    Microsoft's file formats would remain secret under the PFJ. This 
aids Microsoft in maintaining its monopoly and forcing users to 
upgrade to the latest software. Microsoft's APIs would also not be 
effectively opened by the PFJ. Apis that Microsoft must disclose on 
a reasonable and non-discriminitory basis effectively rule out any 
free-software, university research, or any non-commercial use of the 
information.
    Programmers would not be able to make their own middleware to 
emulate a windows environment because the PFJ prevents them from 
using the API information provided by

[[Page 26516]]

Microsoft, and because the APIs are covered by several patents, 
which are not disclosed. Finally, Microsoft can continue to have 
undocumented APIs which implement ``security'' or 
``content control'', and are thus too vague and 
widespread.
    Business practices that are still allowed under the PFJ include 
allowing Microsoft to discriminate agains OEMs that ship PCs without 
a Windows operating system. The PFJ requires Microsoft to offer the 
same terms to the top 20 OEMs, but makes no mention of smaller OEMs. 
Microsoft would also be allowed to offer discounts to OEMs that sold 
other products such as office, or pocketPC, thus extending/
strengthening their monopoly into these areas.
    I believe the PFJ is weak in these and other areas and it should 
be written to be more inclusive and not as narrowly defined. 
Microsoft found and exploited loopholes in the 1995 consent decree, 
and there is no reason to believe that they will act differently 
this time. Microsoft has been found guilty of violating anti-trust 
law, but is not being fined for this violation.
    Thank you for your time,
    Ocie Mitchell
    Pasadena, CA.



MTC-00018138

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the ``revised proposed final 
settlement.'' The prohibited conduct as it applies to OEMs has 
already been determined to be illegal, so prohibiting it does not 
change MicroSoft's position in any way. They have been found in 
violation and simply restating the law to them will not impact them. 
The situation must be altered such that MS is no longer in a 
position to exert this form of pressure on OEMs.
    The requirement of the publishing of various MicroSoft APIs 
(III.D) through MS Developer Network is also incorrect. It allows, 
primarily, MicroSoft to make arbitrary demands (of money, 
identification, and technological capability) before you are allowed 
to view any of their information. Also, they already publish the 
overwhelming majority of their APIs. The trouble is that their 
publications are lies (``in error'', 
``mistaken'', or ``outdated'', the result is the 
same: only MicroSoft knows how it really works). Forcing more 
publications will not cause MicroSoft to cease distorting standards 
with their current policy of ``embrace and extend''. It 
will not eliminate MicroSoft's defacto standard status.
    Such language as ``timely manner'' is completely 
unacceptable in a contract with MicroSoft. MS has, in the past, 
demonstrated an eagerness to act in bad faith. No vaguaries of 
language are acceptable, then. A distinct number of days needs to be 
allowed before they are found in violation, and once they are in 
violation a clear, simple, and financially lethal course of action 
should be described such that MS has no way out but to follow the 
contract. I.e., if MS ships Windows 2002 before it provides API 
documentation, you must not allow them to provide it in a 
``timely manner'' before beginning to decide whether 
anything should be done. Once a specific number of days elapses (say 
5) from release, MS should immediately be found in violation of the 
agreement, their current advertising budget must be reappropriated 
to informing the public of the crimes MS has commited, and their 
product must be removed from the shelves until such time as 
compliance is established. Anything less and MS will NOT act in a 
timely manner no matter how lax your definition. They will spend 
years, then, in litigation to decide what should be done to them for 
a violation that, by the time it is settled, is irrelevant. You may 
note that the current lawsuit originated with Netscape, and it is 
nowhere near finished even though Netscape long ago disappeared.
    III.E is similarly flawed. Their email product, for example, 
operates with protocols described in already public ``Request 
For Comments'' publications (RFCs). When asked to publish their 
protocols MS will simply republish these documents that are already 
available. However, MS does not simply follow the standard described 
in these documents, they embellish and distort in order to make 
their product more popular and then, over time, no longer 
interoperable. They will, in bad faith, pretend that this is an 
accident, or necessary for proper software evolution, but it will 
happen nonetheless.
    The differences between the currently published standards and 
the way MicroSoft software operates are minor enough that it would 
take a jury of programmers to decide if MicroSoft is in compliance 
with its own documentation, but major enough that it renders 
operability with MicroSoft software nearly impossible. By the time 
any technical audit is performed to prove that an MS product is not 
in compliance, the product will already have been adopted in the 
marketplace. Once convicted they will simply release a new version 
of the product that complies on the points in question and features 
new ``accidental'' features that again violate the 
standard.
    MicroSoft will act in bad faith. A ``be good'' 
document will not change anything. Punishment is imperative. My 
recommendation is that MicroSoft lose all intellectual property 
rights.
    Greg Alexander
    103C Hanna St
    Carrboro, NC 27510 USA
    Programmer
    Dignus, LLC. (Raleigh, NC)



MTC-00018139

From: James Luzenski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the Microsoft settlement, it needs to be much 
tougher on Microsoft by making amends far and above what damage was 
done.
    James Luzenski



MTC-00018140

From: Ian Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to register my dissatisfaction and personal 
objection to the proposed settlement in the United States vs. 
Microsoft case. I do not believe that such a settlement would be in 
the public interest. The Proposed Final Judgement would allow 
Microsoft to increase the barrier to entry for competing products by 
allowing Microsoft to continue implementing increasingly restrictive 
licensing terms for its Windows OS. This would not be of benefit to 
consumers, and would only serve to promote Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices.
    Thank you for your time,
    Ian R. Bennett
    Network Administrator



MTC-00018141

From: Marc Prudhommeaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement will have no impact whatsoever 
on Microsoft's behaviour. Please reconsider a more appropriate 
settlement. As a computer programmer in a language that is unpopular 
with MS (Java) on a platform that is more unpopular with them 
(Linux), and am very worried that they will destroy my career by 
destroying the technologies that I rely on. My ISP, QWest, as bought 
by microsoft, and already I am seeing how they are trying to prevent 
me from running Linux (they don't let me send or receive mail, not 
may I real newsgroups).
    If you want me to describe these things in any more technical 
detail, please let me know and I will happily provide you with more 
information.
    Sincerely and Hopefully,
    Marc Prud'hommeaux
    [email protected]



MTC-00018142

From: Bob Ellis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bob Ellis Inc.
2417 Bayfront Parkway
Orlando, Florida 32806-7337
Tel: (407) 859-5883..Fax 859-5350..Cell 247-9072 
``mailto:[email protected]''
rellis1 @cfl.rr.com
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC, 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am pleased to know that the federal government has reached a 
settlement with Microsoft. After three years of litigation, the 
settlement is fair to both sides and should be beneficial to 
consumers. The agreement is extremely comprehensive and mandates 
many adjustments in the way Microsoft carried out their business in 
the past. Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any agreements 
obligating any third party to distribute any portion of Windows 
exclusively. Also, the company has agreed not to enter into 
agreements relating to Windows that obligate any software developer 
to refrain from developing or

[[Page 26517]]

promoting software that competes with Windows. Finally, the 
government assured compliance by negotiating for the creation of a 
Technical Committee to monitor Microsoft's compliance. IF MERGEFIELD 
PARA2 But clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see 
this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized 
society. ??
    I believe Microsoft and Bill Gates have done tremendous good for 
the United States. Their products are used by millions of citizens 
and help make the economy stronger and more efficient. I commend you 
for your efforts to settle this case and hope no further action will 
be taken on the federal level.
    I must say that I am very happy that Bill Gates is an American 
and that he was not a citizen of another foreign country as if he 
was, we would be sending checks from the United States to that 
county to purchase the excellent products that Bill Gates and 
Microsoft has delivered to our good citizens.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M. Ellis, President
    But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box. No, there 
isn't room, the ambiguity's put on weight.
    CC: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00018143

From: Nate Bowler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software engineer that has worked in the computing 
industry for over 8 years. The proposed settlement between the DOJ 
and MS is, in my opinion, a complete sellout on behalf of the DOJ 
that will do NOTHING to increase competition in the PC software 
marketplace! Nothing in this settlement prevents MS from leveraging 
their monopoly in desktop operating systems into new areas. In fact, 
during the course of this very trial, MS has released Windows XP 
with an integrated Media Player, Instant Messanger, and hosting 
service signup that exploits the exact same position as the browser 
integration which began this proceeding.
    Please reject this settlement.
    Nate Bowler
    2352 S. Dakota Ave.
    Provo, UT
    84606



MTC-00018144

From: Prashanth Siddalingaiah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Public Comment
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have read many letters and emails sent to me by friends 
regarding the Microsoft Settlement. This letter written by a close 
friend shows how I feel also. Please remember that your role is to 
protect us; the citizens of this nation from monopolies that 
constrict a free market. Take the time to revisit these issues. It 
would be a great loss if you did not. Thank you for your time and 
effort in this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Prashanth S.
    ``I am firmly opposed to the current proposed settlement 
term in the Microsoft case. The terms do no fully redress the 
actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor their ability to 
commit similar or anti-competitive actions in the future.
    Many of the provisions in the current settlement will not 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. In view of Microsoft 
history of anti-competitive practices correcting this is vitally 
important. A few issues that have been brought to my attention are:
    1) The settlement does not take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems. Microsoft increases the Applications 
Barrier to Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the settlement fails to prohibit this, and 
even contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    2) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License 
Terms currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source applications from 
running on Windows.
    3) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft. Microsoft has in 
the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in its applications 
to keep them from running on competing operating systems.
    4) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs. The current settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate 
against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing 
Operating System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Please refer to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html for 
other issues that must be addressed for the settlement to be fair 
and equitable to all interested parties.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. I implore you to look into these and the other 
issues before before pursuing closure on this matter.''



MTC-00018145

From: Bob Weiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a high-tech executive and software architect with 16-years 
of experience developing software on a dozen different operating 
systems including versions of Microsoft Windows, UNIX and Linux. I 
and most of the technology industry people I know feel confident 
that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case in 
which Microsoft was convicted of monopolist behavior will have 
little if any effect in preventing the corporation from continuing 
to pursue strategies which illegally discredit and bankrupt firms 
which choose to compete in its industries (eventually, anything 
digitally-driven). At a minimum, any settlement agreement must 
include the following terms if it is to prevent Microsoft from doing 
further harm to the once vibrant software industry in this country:
    It must preclude Microsoft employees and contractors from 
utilizing *any* APIs (application programming interfaces) prior to 
having such APIs anounced and published in an open format, e.g. 
HTML, on the World-wide Web for at least one month. Otherwise, 
Microsoft application developers will always use their internal 
knowledge of new releases of Microsoft's operating systems to both 
add new features to their applications and make it more difficult 
for competitor's products to run properly as Microsoft changes the 
programming frameworks upon which they rely. It must not allow 
Microsoft any say in the enforcement of the punishment, i.e. 
selection of 50% of the oversight team put in place to oversee its 
implementation of any actions. It must include significant go-
forward penalties if Microsoft is declared by the oversight team or 
by the judicial system to be in violation of any settlement 
agreement, e.g. its operating system technologies placed in the 
public domain. It must force Microsoft to publish all available 
internal documentation and APIs on all of its file and data formats 
for all of its programs on the World-wide web in perpetuity. It must 
allow royalty-free use of this information in the development of 
alternative technologies which read, write and execute such formats.
    Without such stringent declarations the settlement will have no 
significant impact on Microsoft or the industries and consumers from 
which it has already taken considerable wealth and future 
opportunity.
    Best regards,
    Robert Weiner
    [email protected]



MTC-00018146

From: Fen Labalme
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor 
inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
Please, for the sake of us all, reject this proposal in favor of a 
much stronger remedy. The vast majority of the provisions within the 
settlement only formalize the status quo. Of the remaining 
provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing 
its current monopoly position in the operating system market. This 
is especially important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's 
past transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for

[[Page 26518]]

settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded. 
While it is doubtful that the true losses can ever be recovered from 
Microsoft, a fair settlement should include the permanent opening of 
all Windows and Office API's and file formats so that competition 
becomes possible.
    Sincerely,
    Fen Labalme
    1899 California Street #9
    San Francisco, CA 94109



MTC-00018147

From: Kathy Wheeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not a US citizen or resident, but I hope you will not 
discount this communication out of hand-just because I am not 
a potential voter in your elections.
    I live and work in Australia. For years my computer operating 
systems of choice have been non-windows, non-microsoft systems. 
Because of Microsoft's buisness practices and our comparatively 
small market, it has been increasingly difficult to get the products 
and support I require for non-microsoft products. I DO NOT WISH TO 
USE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS AND FEEL STRONGLY THAT BEING FORCED TO USE 
THEM IS A VIOLATION OF MY BASIC RIGHTS.
    The settlement you have reached with microsoft is known 
worldwide within the industry to be politically motivated. It is 
also recognised worldwide as woefully inadequate. It will make no 
appreciable change to microsoft practices-especially overseas 
out of your direct jurisdiction. The discarded solution of splitting 
microsoft up was never going to work. microsoft were way ahead of 
you there as well. I will not pretend to know of an effective 
solution, but I will say that if you do not act wisely and 
decisively now, you will be instrumental in creating an enormous rod 
for everyone's back-not just your own.
    Please put aside political pressure if that is at all possible, 
and try to do what is best for ALL IT innovation, not just 
microsofts'. I have some hopes that a positive and forward thinking 
result in the US anti-trust case may convince microsoft to 
reconsider it's practices worldwide, or at the very least open the 
eyes of the technically naive public to microsofts'' 
underhanded tactics. As it stands, every decision to date has been 
mis-interpreted by a high proportion of the general community as a 
vindication of microsofts'' position-flying in the face 
of the evidence to the contrary. That is the power of the microsoft 
spin-machine. That is one of the biggest challenges you face.
    Good luck and regards,
    Katherine Wheeler
    [email protected]



MTC-00018148

From: Charles Kerr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dan Kegel's discussion of the proposed final judgement, located 
at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html, which covers issues 
with the proposal in remarkable detail. I strongly recommend that 
the issues raised in Mr. Kegel's document be taken into 
consideration.
    Thank you for your time.
    Charles Kerr



MTC-00018149

From: rcooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am the IT director for James Coney Island, a small fast food 
chain in Houston Texas. We have been in business since 1923 and have 
23 Locations in the Houston area. I Am writing because as a 
concerned citizen of the United States I feel I have an obligation 
to complain about the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    I have been in the computer industry for over 23 years and have 
seen the landscape change a lot over the years. I find it very 
alarming that Microsoft seems to get away with doing what it wants 
in an industry it rules with an iron fist. No where in the proposed 
settlement agreement do I see where Microsoft is being punished 
violating the Sherman Antitrust act. No where do I see any 
reasonable solutions that will keep Microsoft from violating the law 
again.
    If the court really wishes to solve the Microsoft problem and 
allow a level playing field in the industry, it would require that 
Microsoft's closed binary office formats (such as Word and Excel) be 
opened up to everyone. In this way, the average consumer and 
business can freely communicate with anyone using software of their 
choice and not being forced to use Microsoft products.
    Currently, I conduct a lot of business via Email and because of 
Microsoft's monopoly, I get a lot of Email attachments in either 
Excel or Word formats. The problem is I do not wish to use 
Microsoft's products. Their Monopoly status has ensured I have no 
choice in using tools of MY choice that I make my living and conduct 
business with.
    Another problem is the Internet. Because Microsoft has a 
monopoly on the Desktop and because it illegally tied Internet 
Explorer into its Operating system, much of the web is being 
designed to view content correctly only under a Microsoft Browser. 
This is just wrong. No one company should have this kind of power 
over me.
    There are many reasons to be concerned. I have yet to see any 
American company hated as much as Microsoft. Why is this? Their 
actions speak louder than words, they are so big they feel if they 
are above the law. Now is the time to set the example to everyone 
that breaking Federal Monopoly laws will NOT be tolerated. Please 
rethink the settlement and give this company the monitoring and 
punishment it deserves after having put countless competitors out of 
business and price gouging world wide consumers for years through 
illegal monopolistic, anti-competitive practices.
    This HAS to stop now if the computer industry is to make any 
progress in the future.
    Thank you
    Ron Cooper
    James Coney Island Inc.
    Houston Texas.



MTC-00018150

From: Douglas Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Letting Microsoft get away with it's previous behavior with such 
a timid hand slap is counter to the principles of justice that this 
great nation is built on. I encourage those involved on the side of 
the Department of Justice to reconsider this settlement proposal, 
and either put forward another which includes real consequences for 
Microsoft, or recommence the case itself to a punishment phase.
    Consider this a tally against this settlement proposal.
    Thank you



MTC-00018151

From: Stephen Verstraete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed final judgement
    The proposed final judgement on the Microsoft Anti-Trust issue 
should be thrown out as it is lacking for several reasons.
    1. The Final Judgement does not constitute any admission by any 
party regardy any issue of fact or law. Microsoft should be bound to 
admit that their practices are anti-competitive.
    2. In Section D, ``Starting at the earlier of the release 
of Service Pack 1...'' is faulty as Microsoft could simply get 
around the idea by calling Service Pack 1 by a different name.
    3. Provisions should be made in section H to not only remove 
access to the products but remove the products wholly from the 
system without otherwise affecting the use and stability of the 
operating system.



MTC-00018152

From: Alan Santos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea
    Microsoft has broken the law. There are no realistic remedies 
being proposed to right the wrongs they have committed. I am voicing 
my complaint at the lack of a real settlement. Please re-evaluate 
all of the options and find a more suitable settlement that prevents 
microsoft from abusing its monopoly in the future.
    Thank you.



MTC-00018153

From: B Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has used its effective monopoly of the computer 
operating system to establish and conduct anti-competitive practices 
in other parts of the software industry. This has been shown to be 
illegal use of its monopoly power. The remedies should effectively 
prevent such behavior in the future, and should prevent Microsoft 
from profiting from its illegal behavior.
    The remedies contained in the proposed settlement do not do any 
of these things, and will allow Microsoft to continue and expand its 
anti-cmpetitive practices, to the detriment of competitors and the 
public. The proposed settlement should not be approved.

[[Page 26519]]

    Much stronger remedies are required.
    William G. Collins, Jr.
    2 Spyglass Drive
    Aiken,SC 29803



MTC-00018154

From: Jim McBeath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is not effective as either a 
deterrent or a punishment. There is little in the settlement to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing their anticompetitive practices, 
and there is no effective enforcement of what little is there. 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html points out quite a few 
problems with the settlement. There is a large sentiment out here 
that the DOJ has given up, ``rolled over and played 
dead'', and that Microsoft is laughing. The settlement needs to 
be substantially revised.
    Jim McBeath
    [email protected]



MTC-00018155

From: Jonathan Graehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read and am opposed to the proposed settlement of your 
suit brought against Microsoft (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm). I feel the end result will be little more than another 
protracted court case five years down the line as Microsoft 
continues to abuse its monopoly position with little fear of 
meaningful consequences.
    A better settlement would ensure that Microsoft's monopolies in 
unrelated software markets (for example, Microsoft has a monopoly or 
dominant position in a different category of software with each of 
these: Windows, Internet Explorer, Outlook/Exchange, Word, Excel, 
PowerPoint, Visio) cannot be leveraged to gain monopolies in new 
categories of software, or exclude competition from interoperating 
on the level of communication protocols, file formats, and 
application programming interfaces-especially by volunteer 
Open Source software. Provisions for RAND licensing of patents held 
by Microsoft aimed at denying interoperability are not sufficient; 
the licensing must be free to the public.
    Technical communications between different Microsoft 
applications (new and existing) should be performed only through a 
``Chinese Wall'' where APIs, file formats, and protocols 
are available to the public as well as to the Microsoft teams. 
Enforcing this would require oversight by software engineering 
experts-the level of detail available must be sufficient to 
allow interoperable products to be created without any obstacles 
from patents, nondisclosure, or necessity for reverse-engineering.
    Any file or network communication that is sent between different 
installations of a Microsoft product must be publicly documented as 
well, in sufficient technical detail to allow, without any 
encumbrance, other programmers to create from those specifications a 
replacement for the Microsoft product that can interoperate without 
any limitations compared to the original Microsoft article.
    Loopholes allowing Microsoft to dictate in any way the terms of 
use of this technical information (including NDAs and non-royalty-
free patent licensing), who to make this information available, or 
what information to make available would kill the benefit of this 
settlement, and result in another court case years down the road as 
Microsoft continues to illegally leverage its monopoly (to the 
detriment of the economy).
    Regulating the price at which Microsoft may sell or bundle 
products would not benefit consumers, as the actual marginal cost 
for a copy of software is zero dollars.
    I also do not believe that forcing disclosure of the source code 
of Microsoft Internet Explorer is necessary or fair. It would be 
more useful to force Microsoft to make publicly available the 
technical specifications for the APIs that integrate Internet 
Explorer functionality with basic Operating System Shell (Explorer) 
and its Office Suite, again, sufficient that competitors, Open 
Source or commercial, can offer competing browsers that can benefit 
equally with Internet Explorer with the web-browser integration in 
other Microsoft products. This would require modification of all 
Microsoft products that use Internet Explorer directly to use a new 
public API that would allow a replacement browser to fill the same 
role.
    It is most important that Microsoft be forced to make public 
technical specifications that allow interoperable competition to 
their various products, which would have immeasurable benefits to 
the economy and to consumers, as real (even free) alternatives to 
the Microsoft monopoly will inevitably arise, and result in 
competition ensuring better software from Microsoft (and their 
competitors) for a lower price than we would see under the current, 
flawed settlement.
    There is always the risk that no matter what the settlement 
dictates, Microsoft will drag its feet and intentionally provide 
poor quality technical information in order to continue to make it 
prohibitively costly to compete in its monopoly arena. An excellent 
concrete test of the quality of Microsoft's compliance has been 
proposed by Dan Kegel, which in addition to costing Microsoft more 
money as the quality and accuracy of their documentation decreases 
(thus creating a financial incentive for satisfaction of its 
duties), would provide great benefit to consumers by allowing them 
to use Microsoft Office without being forced to use Microsoft 
Windows (the dominance of Microsoft's Office suite in the business 
arena is the primary reason that many users are locked into using a 
Microsoft operating system): (begin quote)
    I recommend that subsections 14b and 14c be struck, and replaced 
with a new subsection reading ``Contracting with a Third Party 
to Enhance Wine to Support Microsoft Office. Within 60 days of entry 
of this Final Judgment, Microsoft must contract with one or more 
outside firms to enhance the Open Source Windows Emulator WINE to be 
able to install and run Office 2000 under Linux. The work shall 
continue, with new releases of Wine occurring every 30 days, until 
completed, or until the expenses incurred by the outside firms reach 
1 percent of the total development and marketing costs of Office 
2000. The resulting enhancements to Wine shall be released under the 
same license used by Wine itself. Furthermore, as soon as 
practicable, but in no case later than 60 days prior to the date 
each new version of Office becomes commercially available for use 
with a Windows Operating System Product, Microsoft shall again 
contract with one or more outside firms to enhance the Open Source 
Windows Emulator WINE to be able to install and run the new version 
of Office under Linux. The work shall continue, with new releases of 
Wine occurring every 30 days, until completed, or until the expenses 
incurred by the outside firms reach 1 percent of the total 
development and marketing costs of the new version of Office. The 
resulting enhancements to Wine shall be released under the same 
license used by Wine itself.``
    Furthermore, the license agreement for Microsoft Office and all 
other Microsoft products sold separately from a Microsoft Operating 
System shall not require the user to own any other Microsoft 
Software or Microsoft Operating System. (end quote)
    Let's not repeat the mistakes that were made in the previous 
consent decree, which Microsoft has made a mockery of since, by 
leveraging their monopoly into new territory without regard for the 
law. One need only look at the increased sales of their products, 
combined with the prices to buy them, compared to the fixed 
development costs, and their resulting cash reserves, to see that 
Microsoft is profiting at the rest of the economy's expense. Making 
Microsoft a government-regulated monopoly and telling them what 
products they can and cannot sell, for what prices, is not a good 
solution (although they should not be allowed to coerce OEMs into 
distributing software package A without software package B). The 
solution with the most benefit to the economy, while still allowing 
Microsoft to compete by producing software as well as it can, is 
requiring Microsoft to publish technical specifications sufficient 
to allow the creation of competing products (Open Source or 
commercial) without any impediment due to Microsoft's monopolies in 
several categories of software. I cannot emphasize enough that any 
remedy that does not allow the creation of Open Source alternatives 
to all of Microsoft's software components will result in higher 
prices and lower quality software. Microsoft should not in any case 
be allowed to dictate the licensing of competing products, just as 
we should not compel Microsoft to give away its products (or their 
source code).
    An ineffectual settlement that allows Microsoft to continue to 
shut out competition, rather than beating it with a better product 
at a better price, will be an embarrassment for the DOJ, for this 
administration, and for the people.
    A concerned citizen of the United States of America,
    Jonathan Elijah Graehl
    [email protected]
    2885 Denise Ct.
    Newbury Park, CA 91320

[[Page 26520]]



MTC-00018156

From: Kari Massarene
To: [email protected] (with a subject of...
Date: 1/23/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I do not feel that the proposed settlement in the case of DOJ 
vs. Microsoft provides sufficient safeguards to ensure that 
Microsoft's monopolistic business practices be stopped. Microsoft is 
still allowed to write end user licenses that prevent users from 
legally running some Microsoft applications on open source operating 
systems.
    Very respectfully,
    Kari A. Massarene
    San Diego, CA 92154



MTC-00018157

From: Bob St.John
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As a professional software vendor and publisher, I'm deeply 
effected by this settlement. I need to support users on Windows and 
other operating systems. The most important thing to me is to have 
Microsoft clearly and publicly document Windows APIs, so I can 
assure that software is designed and works properly.
    MS has a history of using undocumented APIs to leverage and 
control vendors. Causing applications to ``break'' and 
users to suffer. Eventually the vendors suffer and we all suffer.
    This really has to stop. The materials need to be clearly 
documented and failure to comply should be punished severely.
    Regards,
    Bob
    Bob St. John
    Dir, New Business Development
    Serenity Systems International
    a Managed Systems company
    214 222-3414, ext 101 (outside USA)
    888 299-6483, ext 101 (USA only)
    http://www.Serenity-Systems.com



MTC-00018158

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:10pm
Subject: MS settlement offer
    I'm glad you've asked the public to comment on the recently 
proposed settlement. While I appreciate many of the things Microsoft 
has done with it's monopoly position, I feel that their business 
tactics have hurt American competitiveness in the technology sector 
in two main ways:
    A). Competing products do not have an opportunity to prove their 
worth in the marketplace in the face of the types of opposition MS 
generates. Most smaller companies have to close their doors in the 
face of MS lawyers rather than fight. And many good, income and 
efficency producing ideas are lost to American business because of 
that.
    B). There is a hidden MS tax in every computer product we build 
or sell. Licencing agreeements force hardware manufacturers to sell 
a slew of Windows products with each computer, reguardless of it's 
intended use. If I want a seperate computer for just multimedia, I 
still have to buy Windows, MS Office or MS Works, even if I use 
OPenBSD or Linux. Meanwhile, someone in China can sell just the 
hardware itself (without the ``usual'' OS and Office Aps) 
much cheaper. Same machine, just cheaper from our foreign 
competitors. I mean, just from a pure marketplace analysis, you can 
buy a cutting edge system CHEAPER from a communist nation than from 
the USA (who invented the technology)! And it's primarily these 
restrictive licencing agreements from MS that are hobbling our 
market share.
    The US economy needs the freedom to innovate, and the current 
proposed settlement does not free MS partners and competitors from 
thses burdens. And don't even start me on viruses, Active scripting 
and ports left open by default! That's just carelessness on MS's 
part. We need a better solution for American competitiveness.
    Best,
    Charles Landau, MPH & JD



MTC-00018159

From: Lionel Artom-Ginzburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is wholly unacceptable. 
It fails to remedy their illegal actions (a breakup of the company 
or loss of intellectual property rights on the offending products 
would be far more suitable), and places ``restrictions'' 
on them that they have already, with the release of Windows XP, 
ignored.
    When I took Antitrust law two years ago, I was taught that 
Antitrust law was the mechanism which kept market competition 
honest, and that remedies for its violation must go to the source of 
the violation. The reason for the current suit was in part 
Microsoft's violation of an earlier consent decree. It is obvious 
that they do not take the law seriously, nor do they feel they have 
done anything wrong. (The sheer arrogance of attempting to appeal 
findings of fact was unbelievable.)
    I suspect that because of the financial importance of the 
company to the American economy, the truly heinous acts they have 
committed are being ignored (you of all people should know how hard 
it is for a company to lose on rule of reason counts!). The state 
attorneys general are right- there is nothing here that will 
prevent them from the same acts in the future. They've already 
started. Windows 2000, ME, and XP, all released since the initiation 
of the suit, have all continued the monopolization of the desktop 
and browser market.
    The provisions of the Tunney Act permit citizens to comment on 
proposed settlements. As I'm in the midst of studying for the 
Pennsylvania Bar at the moment, I don't have time for a legal 
analysis of this settlement. But as a consumer and former computer 
consultant, aside from my law degrees, I know that I must speak 
against it.
    Sincerely,
    Lionel Artom-Ginzburg (JD, LLM, Temple University School of Law)
    1720 Spruce St. Apt. 8
    Philadelphia, PA 19103



MTC-00018160

From: DH Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is an outrageous sellout engineered for 
the benefit of a convicted monopolist and against the interests of 
computer users and America's technological future. Please reject it 
and require a settlement that actually addresses the facts found in 
the District court case.
    The US Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that Microsoft had 
illegally kept its monopoly position by preying on other software 
developers and computer manufacturers. Microsoft operated illegally 
and greatly benefited from its illegal behavior. The proposed 
settlement does nothing to punish Microsoft for its past illegal 
behavior, nor to effectively discourage further illegal activity in 
the future. Microsoft has already shown that it has learned nothing 
from the findings against it. To take just one small example, look 
at the millions of dollars of development effort in their Media 
Player, which is unnecessarily ``integrated'' into 
WindowsXP-and is targeted at the RealPlayer product line, in 
order to crush it, in the same way they did the Netscape Browser. 
Microsoft, unlike its competitors, simply rolls the development cost 
into their illegally obtained monopoly operating system, and 
undercuts the competition unfairly. Yet the proposed settlement does 
not address preventing this sort of monopolistic behavior at all. 
Remember, developing a media player, a browser and other software 
costs money, and Microsoft leverages their monopoly to mask these 
costs while smashing competition unfairly. The Circuit court in it s 
7-0 decision upheld lower courts in finding this 
``bundling'' illegal and monopolistic, yet the settlement 
does not address this in any meaningful fashion: it allows Microsoft 
to tightly integrate and bundle its media player, its web browser, 
and myriad other applications into the Windows Operating System, 
instead of competing freely against external applications.
    Also, the proposed settlement contains no provisions to remedy 
the unlawful monopolization of the operating system; nothing that 
will produce competition. Remember that the Circuit court ordered 
that a remedy must ``unfetter the market from anticompetitive 
conduct . . . [and] . . . terminate the illegal 
monopoly''. the proposed settlement does nothing of the sort. 
Its attempt to open the ``API'' (programming interface) of 
the Windows operating system will merely reinforce the monopoly, not 
terminate it as the court called for. Also opening the API is not 
enough: Microsoft plans only to open a mere a subset. Complete and 
full disclosure of ALL the source-code is the only 
``opening'' that would suffice to terminate the Microsoft 
monopoly.
    Finally, the proposed settlement does nothing at all to address 
the issue of effective

[[Page 26521]]

remedy alongside enforcement. The proposed penalties are so 
ridiculous that they call into question the integrity of the DoJ and 
the states that agreed to them. An extension of terms that they have 
already violated is hardly a punishment. Fiduciary penalties must be 
applied, as well as structural ones. Also, the solutions proposed 
for ``competition'' are heavily dependent upon Original 
Equipment Manufacturers for implementation-the same OEMs who 
are partners and part of Microsoft's business plans (Such as Dell 
and Compaq). The propaganda effort from Microsoft and its allies has 
been to treat this case as just another instance of government 
intervention in the private sector. In reality, the outcome will be 
pivotal in shaping American society for decades to come. Computer 
technology runs not just our desktop computers, the Internet and our 
communications system-it is rapidly becoming integrated into 
every aspect of life, from cellphones to news and entertainment 
systems to household appliances. The outcome of this case will 
determine whether the promise of breathtaking new technology is 
fulfilled and available to all, in the process keeps America at the 
cutting edge of development, or whether the promise fails because 
one company is allowed to keep stifling innovation as a means of 
holding onto its ill-gotten power.
    The proposed settlement is so inadequate as to be an obscenity. 
It should be rejected and the DoJ and the States directed to follow 
the rulings of the Circuit Court and lower courts instead of 
ignoring the findings of fact and law, and currying favor with 
unrepentant monopolist outlaws.
    An awesome decision has fallen to you. I trust you will vote for 
the future and for America.
    Sincerely,
    David H Walker
    Keyword Communications
    2017 W Touhy
    Chicago IL 60645



MTC-00018161

From: Barak Pearlmutter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not in any substantial way redress the actions committed by 
Microsoft in the past, or inhibit their ability to commit similar 
actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none would 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its monopoly position. 
This is especially important in view of the seriousness of 
Microsoft's past transgressions.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's 
previous actions. There are no provisions that correct or redress 
their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future repetition of 
those abuses, and that in a fashion which is unlikely to be 
effective. This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of 
law. If a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, 
benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' a request to not commit such acts again, 
they have still benefited from their illegal acts.
    That is not justice.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement merely for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Yours Truly,
    Prof Barak A. Pearlmutter
    Department of Computer Science
    University of New Mexico
    Albuquerque, NM 87131



MTC-00018162

From: Chris Bednara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:12pm
Subject: The settlement does not go far enough and lacks the teeth 
to enforce what little it does.
    The current DOJ settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust suite is 
lacking in both form and function. Microsoft clearly enjoys a 
monopoly in the Desktop Computer market. The evidence presented in 
the case clearly showed that Microsoft has repeatedly leveraged 
their OS dominance to both protect that position and expand their 
company into other non-PC/OS fields.
    The settlement needs to make it IMPOSSIBLE for Microsoft to give 
ANY incentive or penalty to an PC manufacturer/vendor for putting a 
Microsoft OS on their PC's or not installing and Microsoft OS. Due 
to Microsoft's great power it can wield, this ban must be absolute!
    The settlement must also keep Microsoft from leveraging it's OS 
dominance to help it's own OS interests and other software interest. 
This means that they need to be banned from using any API's that 
aren't public knowledge, banned from requiring any licensing 
agreement that restricts where software may be ported to, or what 
other software can be used on the same system with said licensed 
products, and banned from giving incentives to companies for 
agreeing to not use or publish non Microsoft products. Even in the 
settlements flawed form, the method of upholding the settlement is 
wishful thinking at best. Hard concrete punishments need to be 
stipulated for each infraction by Microsoft. Penalties such as LARGE 
financial penalties and even a real threat of company division, must 
be put in place. These need to be administered by Jury of some sort 
that is picked out of candidates that are picked from the industry.
    There needs to be a procedure that is set up that makes it easy 
for a company to file a complaint that will be ruled on if it 
believes that Microsoft is abusing it's market monopoly.
    Thank you,
    Christopher I Bednara
    [email protected]
    97 Spring Glen
    Collinsville, IL 62234



MTC-00018163

From: Concerned Parent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO!!!!!
    THE CURRENT PROPOSED MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT IS A TRAVESTY OF 
JUSTICE.
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    THIS IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE! WHAT DOES IT TAKE 
FOR YOU PEOPLE TO DEFEND YOUR CITIZENS AGAINST SUCH PROFOUNDLY 
OFFENSIVE MONOPOLY PROTECTIONISM? IT IS ABSOLUTELY ASININE THAT SUCH 
A PROVISION CAN BE FOUND IN AN OPERATING SYSTEM MONOPOLY SETTLEMENT. 
WHO WAS BRIBED? WHO WAS WEAK? WHO WAS EXASPERATED?
    Back to the drawing board, people.
    SUCH PROVISIONS PROMOTE AND EXTEND MICROSOFT'S POSITION AS A 
MONOPOLY.
    FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCEPT SUCH PROVISIONS INDICATES THAT THE 
MICROSOFT MONOPOLY IS SANCTIONED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. 
THIS PROVISION (AMONG OTHERS) MUST BE REMOVED.
    Christopher Penrose-U.S. Citizen
    Whittier, California
    [email protected]



MTC-00018164

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in United States v. Microsoft 
Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1232 fails to properly address 
Microsoft's behavior. There are so many problems with it, I feel it 
is a disservice both to the public and Microsoft. Philosphically 
(but not paradoxically), Microsoft would be better served by having 
their behavior modified more dramatically. They will produce better 
product and be a better company for it. The public gains by having 
better product at lower prices.
    The PFJ is most emphatically NOT in the public interest. 
Nonetheless, here are some of the problems:
    There is no monetary penalty. Microsoft has broken the law. You 
cannot put a legal fiction in jail, nor would it be appropriate to 
apply the death penalty to it (dissolve the corporation). The only 
penalty left is the language Microsoft understands-money.
    There is no discussion of enforcement. The technical committee 
has reporting powers only. Given Microsoft's penchant for stalling 
and delay tactics, this is unacceptable.
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems. The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' and ``API'' 
means that Section III.D.'s requirement to release information about 
Windows interfaces would not cover many important interfaces. No 
part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any information about 
file formats, even though undocumented

[[Page 26522]]

Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to 
Entry (see ``Findings of Fact'' paragraph 20 and paragraph 
39).
    Microsoft is not required to disclose which of its patents cover 
the Windows operating system. This should be changed to allow 
potential competitors to determine whether they are violating 
Microsoft patents.
    Microsoft's End User License Agreements (EULAs) often times 
contain provisions that prohibit companies from using Microsoft's 
tools to develop software that competes with Microsoft. This should 
be addressed.
    Microsoft's EULAs discriminate agains software that is free. 
Free as in cost, and free as in liberty. For an example, see the 
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA.
    Microsoft's EULAs prohibit the use of software written (using 
Microsoft tools) by third parties on anything but a Microsoft 
product. This is wrong. Similarly, Microsoft products that might run 
well on a Windows emulator are not permitted to do so, according to 
Microsoft's EULAs.
    ISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in Findings 
of Fact (52) sometimes have difficulty understanding various 
undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under section 
III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs-except that the PFJ 
disallows this use of the information.
    Worse yet, to avoid running afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to 
divide up their engineers into two groups: those who refer to MSDN 
and work on Windows-only applications; and those who cannot refer to 
MSDN because they work on applications which also run on non-
Microsoft operating systems. This would constitute retaliation 
against ISVs who support competing operating systems.
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Why does section III.B only cover the ``top 20'' OEMs? 
This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against smaller OEMs, 
including important regional ``white box'' OEMs, if they 
offer competing products. Small businesses drive the American 
economy, yet Microsoft is free to penalize them to their heart's 
desire.
    Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of competing 
middleware to meet ``reasonable technical requirements'' 
seven months before new releases of Windows, yet it does not require 
Microsoft to disclose those requirements in advance. This allows 
Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by changing the 
requirements shortly before the deadline, and not informing ISVs.
    Section III.J.1.a offers Microsoft a blanket exception to 
disclosing anything, under the guise of security. Security through 
obscurity is rarely effective. In this case it allows them to argue 
for continued behavior of the kind that has already been declared 
illegal. Unless I've parsed all the competing word negation in 
section III.J.2 wrong, section III.J.2 allows Microsoft to condition 
release of information on spurious terms. E.g. (b) ``reasonable 
business need''. This allows Microsoft to cut out someone doing 
pro bono work. (c) allows Microsoft to set the standards, except 
they've already proven their criteria for licensing is illegal. All 
of section 2 needs rewritten or better, thrown out.
    Section IV.B.9 is unreasonable. This action is a public 
procedure, Microsoft was convicted through the use of public money, 
and the long term results should be available to the public. There 
is no justification to keep the results secret. The United States 
Government of the people, by the people, for the people brought this 
action.
    Definition J is wrong. All code should be covered, not just 
``major version[s]''. Major versions are a fiction made up 
by marketing departments.
    Definition K covers product that existed when the action 
started, but fails to address new software released before the final 
judgement is entered. Again, all Microsoft products should be 
covered. Nothing is stopping Microsoft from taking a product that 
already exists, gutting it and rewriting it with code that again 
demonstrates illegal behavior, but is not covered by the PFJ. As 
another example, the PFJ covers Outlook Express, but not Outlook. 
Why is Microsoft Office excluded?
    Definition U unnecessarily restricts ``Windows Operating 
System Product'' to a few pieces of software. Cover all 
Microsoft code, not just software that runs on machines the size of 
a large block of wood. My personal ``organizer'' is a 
personal computer. It is much more powerful than desktop machines 
from ten years before it. It has an operating system, RAM, ROM, 
static storage, communications, a keyboard, a screen; in short, 
every element that defines a personal computer. Microsoft is 
powerful. Using that power to jump from Intel-compatible systems to 
something else would be one way out of the PFJ.
    Please throw out this judgment and direct the plaintiffs to come 
up with something stronger. Microsoft (the defendant) should have 
little say in the matter. They are guilty, adjudged so in a proper 
court of law.
    Bob Schulze



MTC-00018165

From: Jesse Boyes
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement does not do 
enough to discourage its monopolistic activities. Also, I feel that 
the Microsoft API should become a standard in the public domain, 
much moreso than proposed.
    Yours,
    J. Boyes



MTC-00018166

From: Mark Earnest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hash: SHA1
    I do not approve of the US/Microsoft settlement. As a 
professional in the technology industry I have witnessed first hand 
the damaging effect that Microsoft's monopoly has had. Please 
reconsider this settlement.
    Mark Earnest 
    Senior Systems Programmer
    OAS-Infrastructure
    Penn State University
    Email: [email protected]
    Office Phone: 814-863-2064
    Public Key-http://mearnest.oas.psu.edu/gpgkey.txt



MTC-00018167

From: C. Vance Shannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Afternoon,
    Please forgive the retransmission of the enclosed note. I was 
obliged to exit the internet and therefore did not 
``proof'' my letter. Herewith is a corrected version.
    Vance
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Greetings,
    I am absolutely appalled at the continuing attack against 
Microsoft. It's disturbing that competitors airing false charges 
against Microsoft receive favorable treatment from the press and 
from many members of the United States Congress. It's even more 
disturbing that several states are continuing with their phony 
lawsuits against Microsoft.
    Microsoft has revolutionized the computer business. They have 
made it possible for the average citizen of this country, as well as 
multitudes around the world, to readily gain access to computers and 
the world-wide network that computers offer. I recall the days of 
``DOS'' and it's complexities, along with the difficulties 
of simply wandering around the computer world. Without Microsoft's 
contributions, the average citizen would never have become so 
computer literate; nor would we all enjoy the benefits of lower 
computer hardware and software prices.
    It's time to call a halt to the attack on one of America's most 
successful businesses. There are many more issues of concern for the 
Department of Justice; likewise state prosecutors. The on-going 
attack on Microsoft from private and governmental representatives is 
not only hurting Microsoft, but also hampering our country's 
economic recovery!
    Hopefully, the U.S. Department of Justice will bring an end to 
the frivolous Microsoft lawsuits; issue firm punishment for any 
wrong-doings actually committed by Microsoft, and let the company 
resume their efforts of bringing wondrous products to the American 
people and others around the globe.
    Sincerely,
    C. Vance Shannon,
    1290 San Pablo Ct
    Minden, Nevada
    775-267-9394



MTC-00018168

From: Ashley Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. DOJ should 
reconsider it's decision.

[[Page 26523]]

    adj
    Ashley Jones
    Verge Works
    [email protected]
    http://vergeworks.com
    510.593.6890



MTC-00018169

From: Afam Agbodike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I do not believe that the settlement proposed in the Microsoft 
antitrust case sufficiently addresses the crimes that have been 
committed against the American poeple. I feel that the settlement 
does nothing to punish Microsoft for what they have already done, 
and is not strong enough to stop them from doing it in the future. 
Microsoft has already shown that they will honor only the letter of 
the law, not the spirit, and therefore the settlement should be much 
stronger to ensure they have no loopholes to work around. Ideally I 
believe Microsoft should be heavily fined and broken into several 
parts, which are then government regulated for the next 3-5 
years.
    Thank you for reading my letter.
    Sincerely,
    Afam Agbodike
    2520 College Ave. #206
    Berkeley, CA 94704



MTC-00018170

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft needs a more strict judgement than the 
proposed settlement. They were repremanded in much the same way in 
the mid-90's, and this just amounts to another slap on the hand for 
their illegal business practices. If the proposed settlement goes 
through, they will be back to their old ways in a matter of years. 
Thank you for your time.
    George Lunsford



MTC-00018171

From: Aaron S. Brewster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is bad news. Microsoft will not change it's 
practices until others are allowed to truly compete with them. Force 
them to open the APIs and allow organizations like WINE and Lindows 
to continue developing operating systems that run windows code. 
Compitition is what will break the Microsoft monopoly, not donations 
of windows based computers or fines or even breaking Microsoft up 
into smaller companies.
    Concerned,
    Aaron S. Brewster
    OSU Undergrad in Computer Science and Biology
    [email protected]
    http://www.engr.orst.edu/brewster



MTC-00018172

From: Erik Vered
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea, and ultimately 
will have little or no effect.
    My name is Erik Vered and I live in Indianapolis Indiana where I 
have worked as a software engineer/software systems anylyst for over 
15 years. Most of that time was spent working with Microsoft tools 
and systems.
    I can tell you with confidence that the proposed settlement will 
do more to protect Microsoft than it will to curb anti-competitive 
practices.
    I hope the court will be wise and NOT enact this settlement. 
thank you for your time,
    Erik Vered



MTC-00018173

From: Torsten Pihl
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed final judgment. It is lame. Please require 
much more from Microsoft. For one thing, please require anti-
monopoly restrictions on ALL Microsoft products. Not just 
``Windows Operating System'' because they can simply 
repackage products under different names (i.e. ``Windows 
CE'' has been renamed to ``PocketPC''). Remember that 
Microsoft has a history of not operating in good faith.
    Sincerely,
    Torsten Pihl
    I.S. Coordinator & Webmaster
    OSU Bookstore, Inc.
    http://www.osubookstore.com



MTC-00018174

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello..
    I am writing to voice my vote AGAINST the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. I do not think it goes far enough in keeping Microsoft 
from abusing the power that they obtained through their Windows 
monopoly. It is a monopoly simply because all they have to do is 
include a piece of software in Windows, and nobody can do anything 
to compete with that. Who is going to seek out other software that 
you would have to pay for if Windows gives it to you free. And for 
each person that they get in their camp that way, thats another 
person that the entire industry can no longer compete for.
    It doesn't even have to be that they include something in 
Windows. With their Passport service, they could control the 
identifying information like account numbers, names and password, 
for every user of Windows. Then charge other websites to access that 
data. The ones that decide to pay, stay in business. The ones that 
don't pay, don't stay in business because Microsoft's customers move 
to other areas.
    Their new licensing plan for Windows XP gives significant 
discounts to users if they agree not to use any other products by 
competing companies. This is the same thing they did with IBM and 
other PC manufacturers. They told them if they didn't install 
competing products on their PCs with Windows, that Microsoft would 
charge them less for each copy of Windows. But if they did put 
competing products on the PCs, Microsoft would charge them 
significantly more, thus making that companies PC non-competetive 
with other companies.
    Their control of Windows gives them too much power and too much 
control over the marketplace. Restrictions must be put in to place 
that control this power that they have so that other companies can 
flourish in their own right, and have an equal playing field, not a 
field dictated by Microsoft.
    The settlement does not go far enough! The public needs more.
    Thank you,
    Johnathan James



MTC-00018175

From: eileen hamilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement? [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. Please do not 
allow it to move forward in its current form.
    Microsoft is once again using the terms of an agreement to wipe 
out competition. Specifically, because Microsoft maintains an 
operating system monopoly, Section III(J)(2) will leave Open Source 
projects such as Apache, Samba, and Sendmail very vulnerable to 
Microsoft's predatory practices. Because under the terms of this 
agreement, Microsoft would not be forced to describe or license 
protocols that affect companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria 
as businesses. This would effectively allow Microsoft to write code 
in such a way as to make it impossible to use with Open Source code, 
thereby forcing users of Microsoft operating systems to use only 
software that Microsoft creates itself or allows non-competitors to 
create.
    Microsoft is doing what it has done many times in the past. It 
has squashed competitors through tactics of intimidation, buyout, 
and outright theft. Now it is attempting to reverse the initial 
verdict which declared unequivocally that they were a monopoly, back 
to their advantage.
    As a taxpayer, I find it disgusting that Microsoft is allowed to 
act in such a cavalier manner toward the US justice system. They 
continually display an arrogance that shows they have no regard for 
the law. Please, do not allow them to remap the playing field to 
their advantage. It is not in the interests of the United States for 
one company to exert so much control over the electronic 
infrastructure of our country-as ongoing and extremely 
alarming security problems with Microsoft products demonstrate.
    Thank you,
    Eileen Hamilton, J.D.
    Planned Giving Counsel
    UC Davis Health System
    4900 Broadway, Suite 1150
    Sacramento, CA 95820
    916.734.9418



MTC-00018176

From: Don Fairchild

[[Page 26524]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    From: Donald R. Fairchild
    Fairchild Software Inc.
    11801 Riverpark Way
    Chesterfield, VA 23838
    Under the Tunney Act, we wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    Just two comments regarding this settlement.
    1. Irreparable damage has been done to the industry as a whole 
due to Microsoft's actions. The last decade being the greatest 
potential growth years of an American Industry, is now lost forever. 
Numerous unnamed commercial entities shall never ever prosper in 
light of Microsofts past behavior, as well as the proposed future 
behavior.
    2. If Microsoft is allowed to remedy this case as proposed, then 
we American citizens can only assume that once again ``money 
can buy anything''.



MTC-00018177

From: Matthew Dharm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional and a Microsoft shareholder, I 
strongly object to the proposed settlement between the US DoJ and 
Microsoft Corporation.
    I believe that the methods and tactics used by Microsoft have 
not only been illegal and anti-competitive, I believe that they have 
hurt the entire computer industry and anyone who works in it. I 
personally estimate that innovation in the computer field has been 
set back at least five (5) years by their actions, as well as 
robbing customers of billions of dollars over a several year period.
    Matthew Dharm
    Matthew D. Dharm Senior Software Designer
    Momentum Computer Inc. 1815 Aston Ave. Suite 107
    (760) 431-8663 X-115 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7310



MTC-00018178

From: JMassengill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement lets microsoft off easy.
    There whole company history isn't about inovation but about how 
to buy or push others out of business.
    PLEASE CONSIDER A HARSHER PUNISHMENT!
    Johnny L. Massengill



MTC-00018179

From: Jonathan Broadwell
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    Jonathan A. Broadwell
    Jon Broadwell
    Logikos Senior Software Engineer
    4550 Jonathan Moore Pike
    Columbus, IN 47201
    Phone: (812) 342-3894 Fax:(812) 342-3895



MTC-00018180

From: Shimone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Excuse my words being lifted from my coworker. Consider this a 
``ditto''.
    Thank you,
    Shimone Samuel
    17 Salada Ave.
    Pacifica, CA 94044



MTC-00018181

From: Christian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea. Unfortunately I do not have 
time to elaborate, but I feel the settlement is too easy on 
Microsoft.
    Christian Brink
    CTO
    ONSITE! Technology
    www.onsitetech.com
    503.233.1418
    [email protected]



MTC-00018182

From: David Carter-Tod
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea.
    Opening Microsoft's APIs and document formats is critical to 
fair
    competition.
    David Carter-Tod
    David Carter-Tod
    
    Instructional Technologist/Distance Education Contact
    Wytheville Community College, 1000 E. Main St.,
    Wytheville, VA 24382
    (wk) 276-223-4784
    http://www.wcc.vccs.edu/
    Online certificate in web site design:
    http://www.wcc.vccs.edu/websiteDesign



MTC-00018183

From: E
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``settlement'' is a joke, although not a funny 
one. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing it's monopoly power and 
now you are allowing them to entrench themselves even more with this 
wholly inadequate method of ``punishment.''
    Everyone who actually understands the workings of Microsoft and 
their products KNOWS how mediocre and downright dangerous their 
practices and products are.
    They outright LIED to and tried to deceive a federal judge in 
the courtroom, to say nothing about what they do daily to the 
American public and corporations who, for whatever misguided reasons 
use their products and services.
    Talk about contempt-repeated, deliberate, organized, 
blatant and conspiratorial contempt. And you roll over and offer 
your soft underbelly for Bill and company to scratch and say 
``nice doggy.'' Shame on you!
    Do your duty, scrap this ``settlement,'' and instead 
punish them, to the FULLEST extent of the law.
    Thank you.
    Regards,
    N. Ienatsch



MTC-00018184

From: Brad Bleier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In light of the coming expiration of the comment period, I feel 
compelled to write. Microsoft has proven to be one of the greatest 
impediments to innovation in recent memory. Mr. Gates has 
demonstrated that he, and his company are flout laws of the first 
order, having largely disregarded the first consent decree, and 
continuing their anti-competitive behavior even during the course of 
litigation. Were a criminal accused to demonstrate so complete a 
lack of remorse, most judges would apply maximum punishment. In 
fact, Mr. Gates even at the time declared that the earlier consent 
decree would have very little effect on Microsoft, and that only a 
few of his employees even needed to read it. Now the Department of 
Justice has elected to permit a far too conciliatory settlement with 
a company that clearly has no intention of abiding by the law. 
Without substantive enforcement, the conduct of Microsoft will not 
change.
    The Department of Justice should also consider further 
investigations of Microsoft. For example, Microsoft perpetrated a 
fraud on the market recently, selling Windows XP as a purportedly 
``secure'' operating system. While they continued this 
fraudulent sales pitch, Microsoft knowingly, and with malice, 
suppressed information regarding substantial security flaws. The 
ostensible purpose for this failure was that public information 
might suppress sales.
    At the very least, the Department of Justice should end 
Microsoft's predatory use of litigation. If Microsoft is to be let 
off the hook after such egregious findings of fact have been upheld 
on appeal, they should not be heard to take any action against other 
companies. Microsoft has obtained, purchased or otherwise developed 
software and process patents that may be used in a predatory manner 
against its competitors. Microsoft is not a competitive company. 
Whatever their current protestations, there is nothing Bill Gates 
and Microsoft fear more

[[Page 26525]]

than a truly free market. Their current crocodile tears over the 
government demands should not be believed, and Microsoft should be 
put to the proof. Please consider real remedies, not poorly and 
incompetently drafted settlements that would prove meaningless.
    Best wishes,
    Brad Bleier
    Member, California Bar
    110 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 201
    Folsom, CA 95630
    916.454.2100



MTC-00018185

From: Eric Knudstrup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the current draft of the Microsoft settlement to be 
grossly in the defendant's favor.
    The items that concern me most are:
    1. The current settlement prohibits competitors from using the 
proposed release of API documentation. Use of the APIs should be 
completely open. The current definition of API is too narrowly 
defined.
    2. The term ``Windows'' is used too narrowly.
    3. The current settlement fails to prohibit Microsoft from 
inserting intentional compatibilities into its software.
    4. The current judgment allows Microsoft to retaliate against 
OEMs who install operating systems other than Microsofts
    5. From Dan Kegels comments: Microsoft's enterprise license 
agreements (used by large companies, state governments, and 
universities) charge by the number of computers which could run a 
Microsoft operating system-even for computers running 
competing operating systems such as Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs 
were once banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
    6. ALL network APIs and protocols should be released to the 
public with no restrictions
    7. All application file formats should be released to the public 
with no restrictions
    Thank you,
    Eric Knudstrup
    12810 Lantana Ave
    Saratoga, Ca 95070



MTC-00018186

From: Kenneth P. Stox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the 
American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Kenneth P. Stox
    Director of Technology
    Imaginary Landscape, LLC.
    5121 North Ravenswood
    Chicago, Illinois 60640



MTC-00018187

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am contacting the DoJ to indicate my displeasure with the 
current proposed Microsoft Settlement. I feel it is lacking in many 
areas and is a bad idea.
    -Shawn Kinzel



MTC-00018188

From: Ben Eastwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement with microsoft is bad idea.
    Ben Eastwood
    Albany CA. -



MTC-00018189

From: Lee R Boynton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a senior software engineer, and have been in the business 
for 20 years. I have extensive experience both using and programming 
for Microsoft products, as well as many alternative platforms, and 
am well aware of the problems that Microsoft's anticompetitive 
behavior has caused.
    I am upset by the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I believe 
it doesn't address Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior in any 
substantial way.
    The definition of terms like ``Middleware Product'', 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'', ``Windows Operating 
System Product'', and ``API'' are defined so narrowly 
as to be useless for enforcement- Microsoft can easily 
reposition new software to fit whatever category they choose. In the 
case of ``Middleware Product'', the definition excludes 
precisely the new ``.Net'' technology while including its 
competitor ``Java''. The ``.Net'' technology is 
by far the most important middleware for Microsoft at this time. The 
definition of ``API'' doesn't even include all of the 
Win32 API itself, which is hard to understand. I do not see how a 
competing yet compatible operating system could be safely 
constructed with the current definition. The definition of terms 
like these are well understood to be much broader by the industry.
    Other problems include omissions of things like file formats (a 
significant barrier to entry for alternative office applications), 
unreasonable restrictions on the use of released documentation, non-
disclosure of patents covering the Win32 API, and lack of any 
timeliness requirements for released information.
    Overall, I don't feel that the settlement imposes much of any 
real penalty for Microsoft, and in fact encourages much of the same 
anticompetitive behavior that I thing should be addressed. As a 
developer, Microsoft's grip on the industry appears to be stronger 
after this settlement, not weaker, and I think as such would not be 
a fair resolution to the illegal behavior Microsoft has 
demonstrated.
    Sincerely,
    Lee Boynton
    500 Milburn Court
    Lake Oswego, OR 97034



MTC-00018190

From: Bill Dueber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate 
reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior. Repeated findings of anticompetitive behavior have not 
changed Microsoft's activity; their file formats and APIs are still 
closed, and incursion into yet more markets in which they could 
leverage their monopoly continues unabated.
    Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe criminal 
penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I can see 
will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a state of 
competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Bill Dueber
    720 W 17th street
    Bloomington, IN 47405-3332
    812 331 0897
    Bill Dueber * [email protected] * Ph.D. student in IST 
at IU
    Graduate Assistant, BEST



MTC-00018191

From: Mark Schoenbaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider the attached letter with my opinion regarding 
the issue of the Microsoft Settlement.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter,
    Mark
    Mark Schoenbaum
    Chief Technology Officer
    Spot Systems, Inc.
    (415) 982-8150 x217  [email protected]
    January 23, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    If I am correct, it has been generally accepted that the free 
enterprise system allows for the creation of competitive products or 
services that will replace older

[[Page 26526]]

similar products. This is true in all aspects of American commerce, 
and the IT industry stands as one excellent example of this. There 
is a seemingly endless variety of innovation and product upgrades 
available to the consumer.
    But here I get a bit confused.
    It appears as if Microsoft's competitors have so far been 
unsuccessful in their attempts to create a better line of products 
than Microsoft has. Many of them have tired in their efforts to do 
so through the front door of competition, and have instead formed an 
alliance with the federal government to shut Microsoft down through 
the dubious charge that Microsoft has violated some antitrust law. 
Forget that most consumers have any number of choices other than 
Microsoft products, and forget that most consumers actually prefer 
the simpler integration that Microsoft products provide with its OS.
    This entire lawsuit has been odious from the beginning. This 
should have been dismissed long ago. However, now that there is a 
settlement in place, one that regulates virtually every facet of 
Microsoft's work, so that there is no doubt that Microsoft is 
playing fair. I am hoping that it will be accepted and sustained. 
Let's all put this mess behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Schoenbaum
    Chief Technology Officer
    Spot Systems, Inc.



MTC-00018192

From: Chris Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not accept any settlement or resolution that assumes 
Microsoft is trustworthy.
    It is insulting to us all to pretend that an entity which faked 
evidence in open court (thanks to David Boies for spotting this) is 
trustworthy, and entitled to interact with its own sentencing.
    Please bear their fundamental dishonesty in mind.
    Chris Johnson
    PO Box 1218
    24 E. Main St. #7
    Wilmington VT 05363



MTC-00018193

From: Anne Watson (Home)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is not good for the consumer, or anyone who trys to compete 
against microsoft. Please don't settle so easily.



MTC-00018194

From: E
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``settlement'' is a joke.
    Microsoft was found guilty of abusing it's monopoly power and 
now you are allowing them to continue their abuses and even entrench 
themselves more with this wholly inadequate method of 
``punishment.'' They outright LIED to and tried to deceive 
a federal judge in the courtroom, to say nothing about what they do 
daily to the American public and corporations who, for whatever 
misguided reasons use their products and services.
    Talk about contempt-repeated, deliberate, organized, 
conspiratorial and BLATANT contempt.
    Shame on you!
    Please scrap this ``settlement,'' do some good and 
actually punish them, to the FULLEST extent of the law.
    Thank you.
    Regards,
    E. Eberle



MTC-00018195

From: Casey Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am a US citizen who is concerned about the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I do not work for Microsoft nor any of its competitors. 
I have worked in computer support and computer related industries 
for over 10 years, using Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.
    I believe the proposed settlement is inadequate and 
inappropriately designed. I don't believe it will restrict 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, nor do I believe it serves 
the public interest.
    I have watched over 10 years time, as Microsoft has destroyed 
its competitors through:
    1) licensing restrictions.
    2) deliberate introduction of software incompatibilities to 
disable competing products (``Windows ain't done till Lotus 
won't run''-this is an old running joke among everyone I 
know in computer support).
    3) leveraging income derived from sales of Windows and Microsoft 
Office to finance ``free'' software such as Internet 
Explorer and Windows Media Player, software that is intended to 
displace competitors such as Netscape and Real.
    4) false claims of integration of software i.e. MS Internet 
Explorer and MS Windows. These programs can be installed and 
uninstalled as separate products and exist as discrete unintegrated 
applications (IE), such as IE for the Mac operating system.
    Anyway, I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement has the 
following flaws:
    The settlement fails to prohibit intentional incompatibilities 
historically used by Microsoft.
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
settlement fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part 
of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The settlement supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret 
APIs, but it defines ``I'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered. The settlement supposedly allows users to 
replace Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it 
defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next 
version of Windows might not be covered at all. This has been a 
common practice of Microsoft's-write new software to avoid old 
agreements.
    The settlement fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before deadlines, and 
not informing ISVs until it's (practically speaking) too late.
    The settlement does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves software developers in 
limbo as to whether they are infringing on Microsoft software 
patents.
    The settlement doesn't require Microsoft to release 
documentation about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    In conclusion, I urgently request the reconsideration and 
restructuring of the proposed Microsoft settlement
    Thank you,
    Casey Gordon
    Web Administrator
    College of Family & Consumer Sciences
    The University of Georgia
    333 Hoke Smith Annex
    Athens, GA 30602-4356
    [email protected]



MTC-00018196

From: Matt Haffner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a avid user, consumer, and developer of computer resources 
for the past twenty years, I strongly urge the Department of Justice 
to *reject* the current Microsoft settlement. Please seek to craft a 
much stronger resolution, not only appropriate to the crimes that 
they have already been found guilty of, but also *without* the 
current loopholes that allow the company to continue their 
monopolistic practices by redefining their primary development 
focus.
    The current resolution specifically mentions 
``Security'' as a development focus that is immune to 
further disclosure. And, as has been leaked to the media, Bill Gates 
has already had the gall to officially recommend that this be the 
company's focus for the next phase of their software enterprises.
    During the entire resolution of the case that you have brought 
before the courts, Microsoft has continued to flaunt its superior 
market position and wealth, purchasing rights and patents to 
software standards in broad areas. The only thing that has changed 
is their rhetoric and their massive public relations effort to 
appease the citizenry and appeal to the taxpayer that your efforts 
are wasteful. Such a response is appalling and a flagrant abuse of 
free speech to quench protection afforded to the average citizen 
provided by your offices.
    Thank you for your efforts on this case to date, but I do 
strongly urge you to reconsider the current proposal for the health 
of the entire computer and information technology industry.
    mh -
    Matt Haffner, University of Wisconsin
    Dept. of Astronomy, Madison
    [email protected]



MTC-00018197

From: Michael Kale
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26527]]

Date: 1/23/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a US citizen and I live in Seattle, WA.
    I oppose the current Microsoft settlement. It does not do enough 
to ensure competition in the computer industry, which is of utmost 
importance. Competition is the single most important thing which 
ensures that consumers win. Competition spurs innovation, lower 
prices, more consumer friendly products, and a whole slew of things 
that nine out of ten people would agree are a benefit to everyone.
    If Microsoft is allowed to abuse its monopoly power to further 
squish its competitors, the consumer will lose big time.
    I can go into much detail about -why- I think the 
current settlement does not do enough to ensure competition, but I 
want to make sure that someone on the other end of this email is 
actually reading this message and wants to listen to what I have to 
say. If so, please write back and I will be happy to oblige. Until 
then, the most important objection I have is that the settlement 
does not force Microsoft to open up it's networking protocols and 
API implementations. Internet standards are what allow computers 
from many different vendors to talk to each other and work together. 
Microsoft would like to ignore computing standards and only allow 
windows machines to talk to windows machines. This creates 
``lock-in'' where it becomes very difficult to operate a 
heterogeneous computing environment with more than one type of 
computer. Thus, once you have windows machines, it becomes very 
difficult to have any OTHER kind of machines, and competition is 
hampered unnecessarily.
    Thanks a lot for your time,
    Michael Kale



MTC-00018198

From: Jon Kropf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer and I am against the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. I feel that any solution that does not 
open up Microsoft's file formats and middleware communication 
protocols is unacceptable. These closed and proprietary formats are 
a very large impediment to interoperating between Microsoft and non-
Microsoft systems. Without opening these formats, Microsoft's 
monopoly on the desktop will continue to exclude competitors from 
having a viable chance of challenging Microsoft's products. Thank 
you for accepting my input.
    Jon Kropf
    [email protected]
    1120 Holly St.
    Denver, CO 80220



MTC-00018199

From: ee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``settlement'' is a joke, although not a funny 
one. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing it's monopoly power and 
now you are allowing them to entrench themselves even more with this 
wholly inadequate method of ``punishment.''
    Everyone who actually understands the workings of Microsoft and 
their products KNOWS how mediocre and downright dangerous their 
practices and products are. They outright LIED to and tried to 
deceive a federal judge in the courtroom, to say nothing about what 
they do daily to the American public and corporations who, for 
whatever misguided reasons use their products and services.
    Talk about contempt-repeated, deliberate, organized, 
blatant and conspiratorial contempt. And you roll over and offer 
your soft underbelly for Bill and company to scratch and say 
``nice doggy.''
    Shame on you!
    Do your duty, scrap this ``settlement,'' and instead 
punish them, to the FULLEST extent of the law.
    Thank you.
    Regards,
    An concerned American citizen



MTC-00018200

From: G. Minette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:21pm
Subject: MicroSoft settlement opposition opinion
    The proposed settlement for the MicroSoft antitrust case isn't 
even a slap on the wrist. It is blatantly a gift from the government 
to MicroSoft, handing them the education market segment currently 
held by Apple and (in universities) other various operating systems. 
MicroSoft has been judged -guilty- of being a monopoly. 
They should be punished for their business practices, not rewarded!
    Garth Minette, Senior Applications Engineer, Verisity Inc.



MTC-00018201

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``settlement'' is a joke, although not a funny 
one. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing it's monopoly power and 
now you are allowing them to entrench themselves even more with this 
wholly inadequate method of ``punishment.''
    Everyone who actually understands the workings of Microsoft and 
their products KNOWS how mediocre and downright dangerous their 
practices and products are.
    They outright LIED to and tried to deceive a federal judge in 
the courtroom, to say nothing about what they do daily to the 
American public and corporations who, for whatever misguided reasons 
use their products and services.
    Talk about contempt-repeated, deliberate, organized, 
blatant and conspiratorial contempt. And you roll over and offer 
your soft underbelly for Bill and company to scratch and say 
``nice doggy.''
    Shame on you!
    Do your duty, scrap this ``settlement,'' and instead 
punish them, to the FULLEST extent of the law.
    Thank you.
    Regards,
    An concerned American citizen



MTC-00018202

From: Brian Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final settlement between the United States and 
Microsoft Corporation is a terrible blow to the information 
technology industry. Microsoft, a company found guilty of violating 
U.S. anti-trust law, has held fast and diluted whats left of justice 
in this country into a settlement that provides a vehicle for 
continuing their monopoly.
    Knowledge is power, even more so in the I.T. industry. Microsoft 
has demonstrated time and time again, that it will withhold 
documentation, embrace and extend protocols and standards, to keep 
its competitors incompatible and in the dark (Caldera DR-DOS 
and the Kerberos implementation in Windows 2000 are two examples 
that come to mind).
    Section J of the settlement specifically provides Microsoft the 
ability to withhold the inner-workings of its operating system and 
other products from anyone. Wheres the settlement part here? This 
allows Microsoft to go on, as they always have, documenting only 
what they feel like, when they feel like. This keeps other companies 
and groups (such as Wine, the windows emulator project for Linux) in 
the dark on certain portions of the Windows API, and prevents Wine 
from ever becoming a fully compatible emulator, and thus a viable 
alternative to the Windows operating system. Microsoft should be 
REQUIRED to document ALL portions of its operating system, from the 
APIs to the communications protocols. Only when competitors can 
produce compatible alternatives, can a competitive marketplace be 
re-established.
    Microsoft must not be allowed to continue to withhold 
information from their competitors (including non-profit 
organizations, open source projects, etc). To allow them to continue 
to withhold information is no settlement at all, but a protection of 
their existing monopoly.



MTC-00018203

From: Keith Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I have read the proposed 
settlement and I do NOT believe that the current proposal provides 
adequate reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies 
have ceased to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's 
business practices.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    The current proposal is not nearly strong enough to protect the 
long-term interests of

[[Page 26528]]

this country's businesses and consumers. Failure to increase the 
penalty will merely encourage Microsoft to continue its anti-
competitive practices and ensure that a non-competitive climate will 
exist and stifle innovation for future generations as well.
    Thank you for your time.
    Keith Robinson
    41 Grafton St #2
    Arlington, MA 02474



MTC-00018204

From: Brian Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have been working in the information technology field for 14 
years and have become very concerned about your proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    It is widely believed by those in the information technology 
field that the proposed settlement is completely inadequate. It will 
do little to punish Microsoft for it's plainly illegal conduct in 
the past, and virtually nothing whatsoever to prevent future 
violations of antitrust law. As a consumer, it infuriates me to be 
forced to pay for increasingly expensive software that diminishes in 
quality with each release. I applauded the Clinton administration's 
investigation of Microsoft. Their case was an effort to protect 
consumers and promote economic growth by restoring fairness and 
competition to the computer industry. Now that the DOJ is under new 
management, it has essentially abandoned it's pursuit of Microsoft, 
suggesting that the DOJ no longer has any concern for either 
economic growth or the public good.
    The United States is a successful nation because its free 
markets encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-
quality, low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from 
monopolists who gain so much power that they can destroy the 
competitive nature of the markets in which they participate.
    I urge all parties involved to reconsider the proposed 
settlement.
    Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for it's 
destructive abuse of it's monopoly power. More importantly, American 
consumers need to be protected against future abuses.
    Very Sincerely,
    Brian S. Powell
    Senior Systems Manager,
    The Ohio Supercomputer Center
    1224 Kinnear Road
    Columbus Oh, 43212
    [email protected]



MTC-00018205

From: Steven Evans
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i dont like the proposed settlement. it stinks and makes me 
ashamed of calling myself a American citizen.
    The settlement is a retoric of an undemocratic agreement that 
will let one company take away my freedom of choice and replace it 
with a government sponsored retoric that provides bad products and 
holds the United States economy to random.
    No sir, do not let this pass. Listen to the other 9 states and 
use their settlement.
    Do not be the fool.
    Regards,
    Steven



MTC-00018206

From: Carter Butts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust trial. As a scientist, I spend much of my 
time developing data analysis software for multiple platforms, 
including both UNIX and Microsoft Windows Operating Systems. My work 
is thus directly affected by the current proceedings, and I am 
concerned that a judgment be reached which is in the best interests 
of myself and other science and technology professionals.
    I am particularly concerned that the Proposed Final Judgment 
does not adequately address the problem of Independent Software 
Vendors who ship Open Source applications. The Microsoft Windows 
Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA, for instance, states in part that
    ``. . . you shall not distribute the 
REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in conjunction with any Publicly Available 
Software. ``Publicly Available Software'' means each of 
(i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in 
whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free 
software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or 
distribution models . . . Publicly Available Software 
includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under 
any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or 
distribution models similar to any of the following: GNU's General 
Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic 
License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public License; the Netscape 
Public License; the Sun Community Source License (SCSL); 
. . .''
    This and other similar EULAs severely limit the potential for 
software makers to build Open Source software which is compatible 
with, or which makes legitimate use of, Microsoft tools. Since 
scientific software is often ``Publicly Available'' as per 
the above definition-in keeping with the duty of scientists 
(especially those with public funding) to make their work available 
to American government, business, and academic institutions-it 
follows that such behaviors on the part of Microsoft serve to impair 
the ability of the scientific community to meet its public 
responsibilities. Given the finding of fact that Microsoft holds a 
monopoly on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, it is espectially 
important to guarantee that Microsoft will not be able to use its 
monopoly power to control Independent Software Vendors. The Proposed 
Final Judgment does not succeed in accomplishing this.
    The United States Department of Justice was in the right to take 
action against Microsoft initially, and-as a taxpayer-I 
certainly hope they will see that justice is served. The Proposed 
Final Judgment, however, is insufficiently strong to prevent the 
abuses which resulted in the initial action, much less the 
potentially actionable practices already proposed by Microsoft in 
the coming years. A strong judgment, possibly including the breakup 
of Microsoft, is the only viable means of restoring the benefits of 
free competition to the American software industry.
    Carter T. Butts
    [email protected]
    Carnegie Mellon University
    Pittsburgh, PA



MTC-00018207

From: Dennis E. Hamilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned that the proposed Microsoft Settlement does not 
accomplish the desired remedy. I find that it essential that any 
remedy require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between (independently usable or substitutable) software 
components, all communications protocols, and all file formats.
    My greatest concern is about the proprietary file formats that 
users currently use to record their content and to interchange 
information with other parties. The importance of common formats in 
interoperability among enterprises and different computing 
communities, and the dependence on these formats in the preservation 
of electronically-originated information, has created a barrier to 
entry for competing products. It has also created a hazard for those 
who rely heavily on these formats in order to interchange 
information with other users. As some users are motivated to upgrade 
Microsoft products, other users in the community are ultimately 
forced to upgrade in order to continue to participate. Likewise, as 
support for the software that operates with older versions of the 
formats is withdrawn, users are not assured of a way to continue to 
operate with their own information and to preserve their investment 
in recorded information, except by converting ot later versions.
    This form of the ``network effect'' in which product 
choices are made by users to ensure their continued ability to 
interwork in an extended community also creates barriers to 
substitution, even for the purpose of preserving usability of 
content that is the user's own.
    I agree that the functionality, features, and overall appeal of 
Microsoft products is valuable and a symbol of competitive approach 
to the market. My concern is that the barriers to substitution 
erected by the reliance on proprietary formats has contributed to a 
monopoly position due to the nature of electronic documents and 
information and the necessary mediation of software for their use. 
Without separating the formats from specific, proprietary software 
for operating with them, the public interest is ill-served and there 
is no opportunity for competitive innovation now that such a 
monopoly exists.

[[Page 26529]]

    Converting to a competitive product with a different proprietary 
format is not viable in most situations, since it neither advances 
interoperability and inter-usability of the information nor assures 
the continued usability of already-recorded electronic information. 
It is not a meaningful substitution.
    Thank you,
    I am
    Dennis E. Hamilton
    Consultant
    Software System Architect
    Member, Association for Computing Machinery
    DMware Interoperability Exchange Technical Coordinator for the 
Association of Information and Image Management, Incternational.
    4401 44th Avenue SW
    Seattle, WA 98116-4114 USA
    tel: +1-206-932-6970
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00018208

From: Ivar Christopher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    In brief, I believe that the proposed settlement has far too 
many loopholes to effectively prevent, or even hinder, Microsoft's 
consumate anti-competitive behaviour. They have shown, through their 
years of actions, that they are very skillful at this behaviour. 
This settlement is, simply put, too weak a document in the face of 
that skill.
    Thank you,
    Ivar Christopher



MTC-00018209

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement of the United 
States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
    The first point that we must not lose sight of is that the 
Microsoft Corporation willingly committed a series of very serious 
crimes that cost the citizens of the United States a great deal of 
money and affected untold numbers of lives. A crime was committed; 
punishment must be metted out such the the behavior of the entity is 
modified so the offense is not repeated. The current settlement does 
not do so. The settlement was largely written by Microsoft and is 
geared towards minimizing the financial loses of Microsoft, while 
maximizing future profits. Hardly a punishment designed to modify 
behavior.
    Microsoft has never admitted that it engaged in criminal 
behavior. Given that the proposed settlement does not make it 
unprofitable to engage in illegal behavior in the future, it is 
reasonable to assume Microsoft will continue to engage in criminal 
behavior in the future. The proposed settlement seems to place 
numerous restrictions on Microsoft's business practices, but the 
restrictions really just force Microsoft to act in a legal fashion. 
In short, where is the pain? We send a person to jail when he or she 
commits a crime in hopes that they person will learn to modify their 
behavior and not commit crimes in the future.
    We do not tell the person ``do not rob banks'' and let 
them go. How does the proposed judgment ensure that Microsoft's 
behavior- its corporate culture-is going to be modified? 
The settlement does not even provide for monitoring the weak 
restrictions it seeks to implement.
    The only reasonable solution to the Microsoft problem is to 
break the company into seperate pieces. By breaking Microsoft into 
pieces, the individual companies will be forced to compete with 
other companies. The settlement implementing the breakup will not 
have to delve into arcane details such as ``what is an 
API'' and ``what is middleware''. Market forces alone 
will dictate what the Microsoft companies will have to document and 
disclose in order to remain competive in an open market. Good 
punishment is simple, straight forward and directly addresses the 
crime. Microsoft manipulated the market, let the market decide the 
punishment.
    Remember-everyone thought the telephone system was going 
to collapse when the breakup was ordered back in the 80s. And, for a 
few years, the benefits were few and far between. Now days, I am not 
sure how cheap I can make a long distance call; the price is 
dropping faster than I can keep up with. A breakup of Microsoft will 
cause pain in the technology sector in the short term. In the long 
term, it will bring great benefits in the same way that diversity in 
any system brings great benefits. Sincerely, Michael Porter Senior 
Systems Programmer University of Delaware



MTC-00018210

From: Britt Turnbull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I suffer daily from the detremental effects of the immoral. 
illegal and disgusting practices that Microsoft have been using for 
several years . . .
    The current proposed settlement is a joke, having no real effect 
at correcting the current situation . . .
    DO SOMETHING . . .
    DO IT NOW . . .
    AND DO IT RIGHT . . .
    regards,
    Britt



MTC-00018211

From: Michael Buice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I would like to urge you to consider the comments of Dan Kegel 
and others concerning the Microsoft trial settlement. An excellent 
resource concerning many informed opinions is the following site:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
    The PFJ as written only helps extend Microsoft's monopoly. It is 
not sufficiently broad and it does not allow for the entrance of 
true competitors into the software playing field. In particular, I 
would like to stress the importance of allowing and enforcing a 
``Window's compatibility'', so that other operating 
systems, without fear of retaliation, could run programs using the 
Windows API's. This would easily allow for a variety of operating 
systems to viably enter the intel-compatible market (Mac OS X and 
Linux) as competitors to Microsoft's current unjust reign over the 
desktop.
    Again, please consider this.
    Michael Buice
    Graduate Student,
    Dpt. of Physics
    University of Chicago



MTC-00018212

From: Richard Ibbotson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    Although I am not a U.S citizen I feel that I have to strongly 
object to the proposed settlement which is between the U.S. 
Government and the Redmond giant which is Microsoft.
    Over here we find that in daily business and personal life we 
are pressurised by the careful brainwashing methods that MS UK and 
their parent company use on both our business community and on the 
home user community. It doesn't stop there. It is a known thing that 
Bill Gates is Priminister Tony Blair's friend. We are clearly told 
that the recent 50 deal between MS and our National Health Service 
``saved the tax payer a great deal of money''. At the same 
time the Ministry od Defence who have an agreement with the U.S 
Government to use cruise missiles with the Royal Navy were allowed 
to use one licence for the whole of their network. Why is it that 
Microsoft ripping off the poorly and infirm and elderly people of 
this country?
    It has reached the point where people are seen to be social 
outcasts if they do not use Microsoft software. For me; someone who 
believes that other people should be allowed to make their own 
choice, this is intolerable.
    Since I am myself someone who wore the Royal Air Force uniform 
back in the 1980s I find it to be wholly unacceptable that a 
multinational monopoly that has been found to be in breach of some 
serious federal laws should be let off with a slapped wrist or 
something similar. I do hope that the U.S Government will reconsider 
the present intention to let Microsoft get away with all kinds of 
things that are normally associated with organised crime and at an 
international level.
    Thank you
    Mr Richard Ibbotson
    170 Bolehill Road
    Sheffield S6 5DE
    United Kingdom
    http://www.sheflug.co.uk/seminar.html



MTC-00018213

From: marco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea because there is no 
punishment in it for the

[[Page 26530]]

crime they commit, something they realy feel and make sure they will 
not do it again and something that will give the competition a 
change to win some ground back that was taken from them illegal
    Marco Meijer
    The Netherlands



MTC-00018214

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ
    The currently proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I 
urge you to accept the alternate settlement proposed by the 
plaintiff states rather than the current Proposed Final Judgement. 
As a system administrator, my daily job is directly impacted by the 
anti-competitve practices that have characterized the Microsoft 
corporation. I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement contains 
misleading and overly narrow definitions and provisions, fails to 
prohibit the anticompetitive license terms currently used by 
Microsoft, and fails to prohibit anticompetitive practices towards 
OEMs. Considering the harm that Microsoft's anti-competitve 
practices have done to the innovation of new and competing operating 
systems, the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue. 
Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest, and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    Lisa Bogue
    System and Network Administrator



MTC-00018215

From: David A. Chappel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly;
    I would like make a few comments regarding the proposed 
settlement. Today there is plenty of cynicism regarding the legal 
system. It is a commonly held belief that if one has enough 
resources, then one can ``buy'' success in court given 
sufficient legal resources. I will leave the correctness of this to 
others. I would like to address erosion of the legal system by the 
perceptions created by this settlement; then I would like to address 
the economic ramifications of the precedent set by this settlement.
    For a legal system to operate successfully, there must be a 
``buy-in'' to the belief in the ``fairness of the 
system'' in resolving disputes, or criminal cases. If 
individuals and companies do not commonly accept this principle then 
they will find other avenues to settle claims, and the rule of law 
will be damaged.
    I fear that for many this proposed settlement will add weight to 
this popular belief. In short, allowing Microsoft to settle the 
claim that it abused its monopoly by donating software (possibly 
using the donation as a tax deduction) to needy schools. While I do 
not dispute the need of the schools, it truly a clever ruse 
Microsoft is playing with the *compliance* of the Department of 
Justice. Given Microsoft has abused its monopoly, the punishment 
ought not to be that it must increase its market share in the 
educational market. Remember that software has nearly zero marginal 
cost and so it will cost Microsoft very little. This sends a 
perverse message to other companies and individuals who may consider 
breaking the law or a contract. For those that have substantial 
resources the message is ``I won't be held accountable'' 
and for those without the resources it is ``I wouldn't be held 
accountable if I was wealthy-so the law is unfair.'' To 
those on the front lines charged with enforcing laws the message is 
``Do not waste our resources by enforcing rules against those 
with substantial resources of their own.'' Correct or not, 
these messages damage the legal system by eroding the notion of 
``one law for all'' that makes individuals participate in 
the shared belief in law, and that breaking the law is not 
respectable.
    There are also ramifications for our economic wellbeing. If 
expected penalties for abusing a monopoly are deemed less than the 
benefits derived, it will only encourage more monopoly abuses. This 
will lead to fewer firms in markets and less innovation as a whole, 
as the large impede the innovative. Please note that there is no 
reason to assume that this precedent will be limited to the 
technology sector.
    While public comments are to be limited to the settlement, I 
feel I must also express my disappointment with the DOJ. It appears 
that the DOJ has rightfully embraced a new set of priorities after 
September 11th, however it is not sufficient to ignore those 
responsibilities unrelated to terrorism.
    Fighting Microsoft in court and in ``public court'' 
may be expensive and may not be politically expedient, but it is 
extremely important for efficient functioning of markets. Budgetary 
demands to the DOJ are small in comparison to the economic cost 
which would be incurred by this settlement.
    Furthermore, those companies which enjoy a monopoly are 
typically those companies with the resources to fight a prolonged 
legal battle. If the DOJ is unwilling to expend the resources to 
fight a large company, then how can it expect to fulfill its 
mandate? It is as if the municipal police declare that they will 
uphold the law against speeding but will charge only those who drive 
slow cars.
    It is my hope that the DOJ renews its resolve in upholding and 
enforcing these important laws. I hope that those within the DOJ are 
given sufficient resources to negotiate from a position of strength, 
so that those that those who break the law are sufficiently 
punished. This is the only way to ensure that others are deterred.
    Thank you for allowing my participation.
    David Chappel B.A. (Economics) B.Sc. (Computer Science)
    8155 Fairmount Drive, Unit #627
    Denver, CO. 80230
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018216

From: JT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my displeasure with the currently proposed 
settlement between the US DOJ and Microsoft. I feel that the 
proposed settlement does not sufficiently address the behaviours 
which Microsoft has exhibited in the past to tilt the competitive 
landscape in its favor. By allowing Microsoft to maintain a dominant 
position within the software industry, the DOJ is doing a disservice 
to consumers as well as potential competitors to Microsoft.
    Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
    It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the 
morning.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph L. Traub



MTC-00018217

From: Christopher S. Swingley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I would like to register my objection to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft case. The settlement is barely a slap on the wrist 
to a corporation that has been found guilty of using anti-
competitive practices to dominate the software market. Not only is 
the proposed settlement much too weak, it will have virtually no 
effect on Microsoft's anti-competitive practices and as a result, 
competition in the operating system and application software markets 
will continue to decline. This is bad. Monopolies are bad. And the 
interests of American society demand the proposed settlement be 
rejected and replaced with a settlement that punishes Microsoft for 
it's illegal activities, and regulates the corporation in ways that 
will restore competition in the operating system, browser, and 
application software markets.
    Thank you,
    Chris
    Christopher S. Swingley
    Computer/Network Manager
    IARC-Frontier Program
    University of Alaska Fairbanks
    phone: 907-474-2689
    email: [email protected]
    GPG and PGP keys at my web page:
    www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/cswingle



MTC-00018218

From: Gene Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the Microsoft Settlement, the most important provision is the 
disclosure of Operating System and Middleware APIs, and disclosure 
of proprietary Communication Protocols.
    As stated in the settlement, there are no provisions to require 
Microsoft to completely and openly publish enough information so 
that competitive systems (eg OS/2, Linux, WABI, Wine) can 
effectively emulate these interfaces.
    Microsoft is highly motivated to keep these interfaces secret, 
and their past actions have shown conclusively that they will 
misrepresent, delay, and litigate endlessly to prevent effective 
competition in this area.
    The only practical remedy to this is to require Microsoft to 
publish source code for all such software and communication

[[Page 26531]]

interfaces. History has shown repeatedly that source code analysis 
is the only universally effective method for publication of such 
information. This is especially true in cases where the disclosing 
party has a proven reputation for, and a continuing business 
interest in, keeping the information secret.
    Therefore I object that the judgement against Microsoft cannot 
be effective or enforceable unless Microsoft is required to provide 
source code to all Application, Operating System and Middleware APIs 
and all Communication Protocols.
    Gene Olson
    Technical Director
    ThinSoft Corporation
    home: +1 612 824 9108
    mobile: +1 612 414 4590
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00018219

From: Mike S. Medintz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
573 Van Gordon Street, Apartment 3-221
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
January 23, 2001
Renata B. Hesse,
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200,
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sirs,
    I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Lakewood, 
Colorado. I am writing to express my concern with the proposed 
settlement, which your office is considering with Microsoft. In my 
opinion, this settlement does not go nearly far enough to either 
repair the damage done by Microsoft or to prevent future violations.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior is not simply aggressive 
advertising. Their behavior is potentially more damaging to the US 
marketplace and economy than were Archer-Daniels-Midland's effort to 
fix the prices of agricultural supplies in recent years. Microsoft 
forces computer hardware vendors to sign exclusive marketing 
agreements, meaning that the vendors are unable to sell competing 
operating systems. When I was shopping for the two computers, which 
I use at home, several major manufacturers, including Dell and 
Gateway, were unable to sell me a computer with Linux installed, and 
even were unable to sell me a computer with no operating system 
installed at all. Even though I had no intention of using Microsoft 
Windows, I was forced to pay the prices of two Microsoft software 
licenses. If Microsoft did not have a monopoly position within the 
meaning of the Sherman Act, then they would not be able to abuse a 
monopoly position and I would not be forced to pay a 
``Microsoft Tax'' every time I buy computer equipment.
    Now try to imagine the cost of this ``Microsoft Tax'' 
to a small business, a poor family, or a school-all entities 
which usually operate on a shoestring. And imagine the cost of their 
newest operating system, Windows XP. When you buy a reasonably-
modern computer from a major manufacturer, it is quite easy to do so 
for well under $1000. And of the components of that computer, the 
Windows XP license the one for which you're charged a Microsoft Tax, 
whether you'll use it or not-is the most expensive. A 
licensing fee, charged only because the recipient is an abusive 
monopoly, is more expensive than a fast and powerful processor or a 
large hard drive.
    Microsoft has also signed other exclusive deals with other 
service suppliers. These are deals which worked to customers'' 
detriment and which would not have been possible save for 
Microsoft's monopoly position, and which serve no purpose but to 
stifle competition. A prime example is the Microsoft Network's deal 
with Qwest. Under this deal, all Qwest DSL customers are forced to 
either use the Microsoft Network as their internet service provider, 
or to pay large ``transfer fees'' and suffer service 
outages. And Qwest has a monopoly on DSL in its service area, being 
the telephone company for most of the western United States. In 
other words, if a person wishes to have DSL high-speed internet 
access, he must either pay Microsoft a monthly subscription fee or 
pay a rather large fee to Qwest, a fee sufficiently large to deter 
most customers from using other providers. Furthermore, Microsoft 
has announced, last autumn, that all Microsoft Network users MUST 
use Microsoft's internet software to connect to the internet. They 
must use Outlook and Internet Explorer. I count four web browsers 
(IE, Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera) and four popular email programs 
(Outlook, Eudora, Lotus, and Pegasus) available for Microsoft 
Windows 85,98, NT, and 2000, but only the ones from Microsoft are 
acceptable.
    The internet currently uses certain standards for email, the 
Standard Mail Transfer Protocol and the Post Office Protocol. The 
interoperability on which the internet is based requires that these 
two universal standards be followed. All of the mail software which 
I have named above is fully standards-compliant. Similarly, World 
Wide Web standards are defined in the Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol. 
All of the web browsers named above are compliant with that 
protocol.
    In other words, Microsoft had no reason to require the use of 
Outlook and Internet Explorer. No reason, except to lock their 
competitors out. I did not elect any members of Microsoft's board, 
or any of their officers. I was never offered an opportunity to 
vote. Microsoft is not an agency of the Federal government or of the 
State of Colorado. Why, then, is this company allowed to use their 
monopoly power to tax me? Why are they allowed to use their monopoly 
position in software to leverage a monopoly in DSL internet access 
and to lock competitors out of the market?
    That Microsoft is an abusive monopoly has been proven. I limit 
myself to the examples above, rather than explaining about 
undocumented programming interfaces and the ``Embrace, Extend, 
and Extinguish'' methodology, only because of concern for your 
time.
    The only way to end their abuse and allow competition to exist 
is to break the company up, and to force open their code and API's. 
As long as Microsoft is allowed to exist, they will continue to 
acquire power and to abuse it.
    Sincerely,
    Mike S. Medintz



MTC-00018220

From: Scott Francis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disturbed by the proposed anti-trust settlement in the 
Microsoft v DOJ case. In spite of Attorney General Ashcroft's words 
to the contrary, this settlement is neither ``strong'' nor 
``historic'', and amounts to little more than a slap on 
the wrist to Microsoft. More importantly, it does nothing to reduce 
the barrier to entry that Microsoft has erected in the operating 
system and applications market.
    The proposed ruling will do nothing to make it easier for a 
competitor to Microsoft to release a product designed to run on 
Windows and compete with Microsoft's own applications. We have seen 
how this scenario played out in the past-Microsoft either 
crushed its competitors (Corel's WordPerfect suite, for instance), 
absorbed them (WebTV, purchase of SGI's image patents, etc.) or 
changed existing standards just enough to exclude competitors 
(Kerberos comes to mind).
    Any ruling that does not -force- Microsoft to allow 
competitors in the application field fair and unrestricted access to 
the Windows source code (and more importantly, user base) without 
Microsoft attempting their famous ``embrace and extend'' 
tactic (see previous paragraph), will ultimately have no effect on 
the reality of the Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft will continue to 
hold the home computing market, and the majority of the business 
computing market, in a stranglehold, locking people into inferior 
products, preventing them from exercising free choice among a 
variety of options, and generally preventing innovation and growth 
in the computing industry.
    I do not wish to see the Internet go the way of the desktop 
computing landscape. If Microsoft is allowed to proceed unchecked, 
with ``business as usual'', they will eventually consume 
the Internet as well (Hailstorm/.NET comes to mind). Thanks for your 
consideration.
    Scott Francis darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e 
t
    Systems/Network Manager
    sfrancis@ [work:] t o n o s . c o m



MTC-00018221

From: Morgan Doocy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    23 January 2002
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Being a computer professional, I strongly disagree with the 
settlement terms outlined by the Proposed Final Judgment.
    I feel the language of the PFJ is insufficiently succinct, 
leaving a number of significant and critical loopholes that may be 
used to easily evade compliance with the PFJ. Furthermore, I feel 
that many essential provisions are absent from the PFJ, allowing

[[Page 26532]]

a number of significant anticompetitive and exclusionary practices 
to continue.
    Many of these missing provisions may seem overly-specific, 
frivolous, or even damaging to Microsoft's right to protect its 
self-interest. But on the contrary I believe, as do many others, 
that through its anticompetitive practices Microsoft has in fact 
coerced OEMs, IAPs, and ISVs into giving up THEIR right to protect 
their self-interest by instituting punitive, frivolous, or overly-
specific licensing agreements which prevent them from exploring 
those Microsoft-competitive products and services which could have 
in fact enhanced the quality of the licensees'' product. To 
remedy such an offense, and to prevent its reoccurrence, a thorough 
and well-worded set of restrictions and requirements is called for, 
if not to promote competitive experimentation, at least to ensure 
that no way exists for such anticompetitive practices to ever again 
be used.
    Mr. Dan Kegel has compiled an excellent collection of resources 
on the PFJ, amongst which is his own essay, ``On the Proposed 
Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft.'' I would like to 
refer the reader to these resources for opinions on the missing 
provisions I mentioned earlier, in the hopes that those more 
informed than I may better explain the importance of those 
provisions.
    Mr. Kegel's resources page may be found at: . His essay, ``On the Proposed Final 
Judgment in United States v. Microsoft'', may be found at: 
.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Morgan Doocy
    [email protected]



MTC-00018222

From: Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam
    I have watched with great interest and nervousness the 
proceedings of the case dealing with Microsoft Corp and the 
Antitrust charges against that company. Sadly, the decisions being 
made have once again shown why the people should distrust the 
government and those in charge making decisions that affect us all 
as computer users and taxpayers. It also tends to indicate how 
uninformed those people are in technology matters.
    As one law enforcement officer commented to me, ``Why do 
you think they call it the ``Criminal Justice 
System''?'' It is now painfully obvious why it is referred 
to as that considering the judgements rendered on the Microsoft 
case. There have been too many mistakes made, evidence very critical 
to the guilt of Microsoft left out and letting Microsoft even 
deciding their own punishment in this case! I think heavy punishment 
should be rendered both financially & criminally to Microsoft 
and quickly. Why should a case of such obvious guilt be allowed to 
continue any further and why has there not been a speedy resolution? 
I also do not think Microsoft should be allowed to regain any 
financial restitution thru taxes or other illegal means for the 
fines levied, if any ever are!
    I hope the US government will soon wake up to their failure to 
institute correct punishment to Microsoft. The US citizens grow 
tired of the government failing to protect their rights and allowing 
big business and criminals to make the decisions for everyone.
    Thank you for your time.
    Patrick L. Smith, owner
    Magic Page Products
    Computer Sales & Services



MTC-00018223

From: David J Harr
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement is not in the best 
interests of the consumer, and I oppose it. Although there are many 
problems with the settlement, the one that I am most concerned about 
is with sections III.F and III.G. Although these sections purport to 
prohibit exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft, it fails to 
cover a class of ISVs that I am particularly concerned about, 
namely, ISVs that ship open source applications. One example of this 
is contained in the End User License Agreement for the Windows Media 
Encoder 7.1 Software Development Kit. That EULA reads, in part 
. . . you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE 
COMPONENT in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. 
``Publicly Available Software'' means each of (i) any 
software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in 
part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open 
source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution 
models . . . Publicly Available Software includes, without 
limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the 
following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or 
distribution models similar to any of the following: GNU's General 
Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic 
License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public License; the Netscape 
Public License; the Sun Community Source License 
(SCSL);. . .
    If an ISV chooses to publish their application under an open 
source license are specifically prohibited by this EULA from 
distributing the associated APIs of the Windows Media Encoder with 
their application. This places the onus of getting the API, 
installing it, and verifying it on the end user, in effect leaving 
the Applications Barrier to Entry in place for ISVs using this 
licensing model. Therefore, I feel that until the Final Judgement 
addresses this issue, it should not be enacted as written.
    David
    David J Harr
    Technology Scapegoat
    THQ, Inc.
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00018224

From: Jeremiah Bachmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement being proposed is not enough. Microsoft needs to 
be punished for it's practices, and donating software to schools is 
not a punishment since it costs Microsoft very little to replicate 
its software.
    Jeremiah Bachmann



MTC-00018225

From: Andrew Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir/madam,
    I amopposed to the leniency of the settlement agreement with 
Microsoft. My reasons for this are as follows:
    (1) The only penalty that is apparent is one that Microsoft has 
``agreed'' to or would agree to. This is hardly 
appropriate for a company with a history of breaking such 
agreements.
    (2) There is no apparent requirement for 
``probation''. That is, a process whereby Microsoft can 
demonstrate its rehabilitation quantifiably to the US DOJ, and to 
its ``citizens''.
    (3) Microsoft has made no realistic offers of damages to 
aggrieved parties, and shows no inclination to be realistic in 
damages. The only offer made was one that was of commerical benefit 
to Microsoft, which was (luckily) rejected. To my mind there are 
only two valid remedies:
    (1) That which Judge Jackson required-The breaking apart 
of Microsoft into separate entities, one for operating systems, and 
another as an applications provider.
    This would also take into account the effect of Microsoft's .net 
strategy, which is not open but restrictive, where Microsoft 
controls not only the .net standard, but access to it.
    (2) That Microsoft is forced to publish ALL the API's with 
documentation for its operating systems without any ``preferred 
customer'' options in the same time space that they provide 
them for their own Microsoft developers.
    This means that applications developers would not have the lag, 
or technical barriers that are currently imposed upon them.
    These two remedies I would favour do not include redress for the 
financial and other damage caused to those affected by Microsoft's 
illegal behaviour. However, I would think that those aggrieved in 
this would have access to financial redress directly. Mind you, it 
might be appropriate that the US DoJ mandates to Microsoft that they 
provide redress to the named parties (such as Sun, Netscape etc).
    I thank you for your consideration of this submission.
    Regards
    Andrew Williams



MTC-00018226

From: Roger Atkinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    I might be just one person who has a comment on this settlement 
but I am also a person who works Full Time in a Sr. IT

[[Page 26533]]

position. I work every day to research and justify the direction and 
expenditures that my company decides to allocate in it's IT 
endeavors. I feel compelled to comment on this very important issue 
not only as an IT professional but also a personal user of computing 
systems.
    I have been using Microsoft products as well alternatives for 
well over the past 10 years. During this time it has been 
increasingly impossible to find alternatives to MicroSoft's products 
and when an alternative does exist, it usually is not around for 
much longer having been pushed out of the market place by 
Microsoft's predatory practices. Once the alternative is squashed, 
the product from Microsoft quickly becomes over priced according to 
current market practices.
    I feel very strongly that Microsoft should be punished to the 
full extent of the allowable law for it's violations and any remedy 
should include the complete remittance or discount to those who have 
been hurt the most by Microsoft. Not only should the individual 
customers be given rebates or immediate relief from the high prices 
that Microsoft has imposed (as a result of their illegal Monopoly) 
but businesses as well should have recourse to recoup the damage 
that has been done to them.
    I can say with complete honesty that my company has entered into 
a Corporate Licensing Agreement with Microsoft, not because they 
wanted too, but, because there either wasn't an alternative 
Enterprise solution available or the solutions available were not 
solvent due to being pushed out of the IT market place. Shame on 
them! Shame on the courts for not righting this wrong in a manner 
that allows the both the customers of Microsoft and the Companies 
harmed by Microsoft to get some relief.
    Sincerely,
    Roger K. Atkinson
    Sr. Operating Systems Analyst
    [email protected]



MTC-00018227

From: Josh Stanley
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement between the US Justice 
Department and Microsoft, Inc. is a woefully insuficient remedy. 
Microsoft has engaged in a decade of anti-competetive behavior, and 
found guilty as such. In addition to severe restrictions on future 
marketing and licensing activities, Microsoft must be forced to 
cease the practice of ``bundling'' of unrelated software 
applications, and furthermore, Microsoft should be required to pay 
TREBLE DAMAGES to every corporation that it has unfairly harmed 
through its illegal practices.
    Thank you
    Joshua Stanley
    Technical Trainer
    AvantGo
    Office: (510) 259-4046
    Mobile: (415) 378-0183
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00018228

From: Peter Hollingsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read through the proposed Microsoft settlement and find 
it completely inadequate. It does not prevent Microsoft from 
hijacking new technologies by bundling them into its operating 
system in the future, and it does very little to compensate for 
Microsoft's abuse of its OS monopoly in the past.
    This proposed settlement will hurt innovation and cost consumers 
money. I hope that you will take this into account when making a 
final decision.
    Best regards,
    Peter Hollingsworth
    5306 Shafter Avenue
    Oakland, CA 94618



MTC-00018229

From: Bob Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    E-mailed earlier on this. The settlment is more than fair. Today 
I read AOL will sue MS for $12B re Netscape matter. One, Explorer 
outdistanced Netscape on quality and performance. Two, to encourage 
AOL is outrageous considering its virtual monopoly and use of its 
site to garner more and more.
    E.Harris [email protected]



MTC-00018230

From: Mason, Todd
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    OLE-LINK2OLE-LINK1Greetings,
    I am writing to express my opinion on the proposed settlement to 
the Microsoft Antitrust case.
    I feel the proposed settlement is nowhere near as harsh as it 
should be. For years Microsoft has been cramming their software down 
the throats of large corporations, small businesses, and the 
individual consumer while using its financial muscle to knock out 
any competitor that represents even the smallest bit of threat. 
Right now it is impossible to purchase an IBM compatible desktop PC 
or laptop PC that does not have a version of windows pre-installed 
on it. Microsoft tells PC manufacturers that if they do not sell 
*ALL* of their PCs with windows on them, they cannot sell *ANY* of 
their PCs with windows on them. This does not give the consumer a 
choice about how to use the PC they are paying for, it also 
increases the price of that PC dramatically because the price of the 
license for Windows (and usually Office) is built into the cost of 
the PC. About one year ago I purchased a laptop form Compaq and was 
forced to have it pre-installed with Microsoft Windows ME(Millennium 
Edition) and Microsoft Office 2000. I had no intention of running 
Windows on the laptop when I purchased it, but had to pay for the 
licenses anyway. I think that if this settlement is accepted it will 
do little if anything at all to stop Microsoft's illegal practices. 
I urge you to reject the current proposal and come up with a new 
settlement that will show Microsoft that citizens of this country 
have had enough of their schemes.
    Many great ideas for changes to the proposed settlement are 
available at the following web site.
     http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Thank you for your time.
    Todd Mason
    Computer Technician
    North Haven CT, 06473



MTC-00018231

From: David Hallowell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've have been involved with computers for many years and have 
seen the anti-competitive business practices first hand. Microsoft 
always talk about innovation, however they have done the most in the 
history of computing to stop other companies innovating.
    Therefore I believe the current settlement with MS is a BAD 
idea, Microsoft needs strict legal sanctions, the current settlement 
gives them little more than a slap on the wrist.
    Microsoft's latest operating system (Windows XP) carries on the 
current Microsoft practice of using bundling to try and kill off 
their competition. MSN Messenger is integrated into Windows XP in 
such a way that there is no obvious was to remove it, the only way 
to remove it is to do an internet search for an undocumented file to 
edit-this is beyond the skill of an average user.
    As a person who does not use Windows, and instead prefers to use 
an open source operating system (Linux), I find it difficult to 
operate in a world without Microsoft software. I often get documents 
sent to me in the proprietary Microsoft Word format, I can't listen 
to online radio stations because most of the broadcast in Windows 
Media Format, I can't communicate with Windows using friends who 
have signed up with MSN Messenger. The reason that most people use 
Windows is that it has such a stranglehold on the market, it's 
difficult to use anything else unless you make a big sacrifice with 
interoperability with Windows users.
    Many people are working on products which make it easier for 
users of other systems to work with others, however Microsoft make 
this task difficult by changing file formats, and modifying 
protocols.
    Microsoft is effectively a bully-boy, they have the money to get 
what they want and don't care who they crush to get there. They have 
caused an untold amount of damage on the industry.
    Therefore, any punishment should take into account this damage 
and must also set out clear guidelines for how they should behave in 
the future. If they break any of the guidelines in the future the 
punishment should be a lot harsher.
    Ultimately we need all the protocols and document formats opened 
up by Microsoft. The Microsoft Office document formats have become 
so commonplace that people just assume that your computer can read 
them and people are surprised when they get emailed back by myself 
informing them that

[[Page 26534]]

I don't have any software that can read the Microsoft Office formats 
easily.
    In the consumer electronics world we have VHS which means that 
all video recorders are manufactured to the VHS standard, therefore 
you can goto the local video rental shop, place a tape in any VCR 
and it'll work correctly, you don't have to buy a particular brand 
VCR, as long as it's VHS it'll work.
    Microsoft Office has become the ``de-facto'' standard, 
therefore the file formats should be opened in all past and future 
versions, this will allow anyone to write an office suite that can 
read MS Office formats. This would mean office software 
manufacturers would be competing on quality and features, rather 
than MS relying on a lock-in to their file format.
    David Hallowell 



MTC-00018232

From: Seth Mellon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As provided by the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft Antitrust settlement.
    I feel this settlement is insufficient in its attempt to curb 
Microsoft's unfair and illegal practices. Most significant, in my 
opinion, is the way in which it fails to limit several specific 
anti-competitive strategies employed by Microsoft, including (but 
not limited to) designing intentional incompatibilities between 
Microsoft and competing softwares, and retaliatory practices against 
OEM's which do not exclusively use Microsoft operating system 
software.
    Please consider this a definite and emphatic objection to the 
current settlement.
    Seth Mellon
    Software Developer
    California



MTC-00018233

From: Smac Deez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settlement is bad!



MTC-00018234

From: Stephen Waits
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case is an 
outrageous and horrible idea. Please register my complaint as 
appropriate.
    Stephen Waits 
    CEO, Waits Consulting, Inc.
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00018235

From: Scott Quick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I have read over the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement, and am NOT in favor of it, in its current state.
    I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on 
the Web at ), 
namely:
    *The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    *Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    *The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    *The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.
    *The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    *The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    *The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    *The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    *Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    *Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    *Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    *Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs- including regional ``white box'' OEMs which 
are historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    *The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Also, when Microsoft stops providing bug fixes for a product, 
they should be required to open-source that product. The customers 
who purchased that product have a reasonable right to expect 
Microsoft to provide them with fixes for problems, or to provide 
them with the means to fix it themselves. I feel this is true of all 
software products- once the copyright holder stops supporting 
that product, within 5 years they should lose their copyright on 
that product, and should be required to make the source code for 
that product available to anyone who purchased it.
    In being found guilty of violating antitrust law, Microsoft was 
found guilty of harming American -consumers-. The 
consumers are the ones that need redress, not just businesses.
    One of Microsoft's chief claims during the trial was they faced 
plenty of competition, and they pointed to Free and Open Source 
Software as an example, and yet under Section III(J)(2) and Section 
III(D) of the PFJ, not-for-profit organizations have no rights at 
all. Under provisions to release the APIs of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, ``viable businesses'', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish. Thus, the manner in which 
APIs would be revealed are limiting to Microsoft's main competitor: 
Free and Open Source Software (``Free'' defined as 
``without restriction'' not ``free of cost''). 
This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits to American 
consumers. It is essential that this pro-consumer movement be helped 
by the settlement. Every consumer who purchased Microsoft products 
should have access

[[Page 26535]]

(without cost) to the APIs needed to interact with those products. I 
feel the APIs should be made fully public.
    Also, due to Microsoft's deals with computer sellers requiring 
them to make a payment to Microsoft for every computer they sell, I 
cannot purchase a computer from any large seller without paying for 
a Microsoft operating system, even if I want the computer without 
any operating system. This seems wrong to me, and reminds me of the 
kind of deals made by Standard Oil.
    Finally, the main concern I have is that the PFJ seems to only 
limit the future behavior of Microsoft. I do not see any 
-punishment-. If I commit a crime-whether it is 
jay walking or murder, or a more abstract crime like embezzlement or 
libel-the court will -punish- me for that act. 
Where is the corresponding punishment for Microsoft? If a person or 
organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts 
and then receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that 
they cannot commit those acts again, they have still benefited from 
their illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of 
their abuses and not for the American people in general.
    Scott Quick
    Senior Software Engineer
    Brooklyn Park, MN



MTC-00018236

From: Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO to the Microsoft settlement. If we are ever to get out of 
this economic situation, we need sharks like Micosoft out of the 
picture. Be harsh, they deserve it.



MTC-00018237

From: Current U ser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am a former customer of Microsoft's I have seen all too well 
how their software takes the power away from the user and gives it 
right back to Microsoft. An unfortunate poster-child for this is 
their new Windows XP operating system, so much that persons that 
purchase this software must register sensitive information with the 
evil corporation just to unlock the softwares full functionality.
    I implore you to press on and under no uncertain terms make very 
sure they cannot be allowed to dominate users computer environments. 
I couldn't install Netscape properly in my version of Windows 98 at 
first, as windows deemed to not accept it as my primary browser. 
Worse yet, I could not use the functionality of some Java programs, 
.asx streaming media, and other important media features without 
something related to IE (Internet Explorer) or WMP (Win. Media 
Player) popping up to interrupt my usage of the Netscape browser.
    Computer operating systems are meant to serve the user, not work 
against them. Their new ``Anti-Piracy'' measures do 
nothing to stop piracy while turning away control of the users 
computer to hackers and media companies.
    I must emphasize my concern for the electronic media world in 
general if Microsoft be allowed to continue it's evil ways. They 
dominate the industry in a way so burdensome that companies are 
afraid to ship computers without Windows. . .afraid users will bulk 
at the unfamiliar. Competition is necessary and vital. Do all 
Americans a great service, cage the beast, and reopen the market.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Jeff Odgis
    United States Citizen
    Resident of S. Florida
    Computer Specialist



MTC-00018238

From: Margulies, Adam
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. It does nothing 
meaningful to prevent future monopolistic behavior on the part of 
Microsoft. Please reconsider.



MTC-00018239

From: Stephen Groundwater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please punish Microsoft severely.
    I am extremely concerned with their dominate and closed control 
of file formats ranging from the .DOC to the Windows Media Player.
    I have seen first hand what it's like to stay competitive in the 
legal industry while using Word Perfect from Corel. YOU CAN'T. MS 
controls the file formats, therefore they control the world.
    Ball's in your court.
    -Steve Groundwater
    Philadelphia PA



MTC-00018240

From: Bob Ellis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bob Ellis Inc.
    2417 Ba??front Parkway
    Orland?, Ho??da ?2806 7337
    Tel: (407) 859 5883. Fax 859 5350. Call 247 9?72 
[email protected]
    January 23.2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice,
    950 Pennsylvania Ave.
    Washington, DC, 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am pleased to know that the federal government has reached a 
settlement with Microsoft. After three years of litigation, the 
settlement is fair to both sides and should be beneficial to 
consumers. The agreement is extremely comprehensive and mandates 
many adjustments in the way Microsoft carried out their business in 
the past. Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any agreements 
obligating any third party to distribute any portion of Windows 
exclusively. Also, the company has agreed not to enter into 
agreements relating to Windows that obligate any software developer 
to refrain from developing or promoting software that competes with 
Windows. Finally, the government assured compliance by negotiating 
for the creation of a Technical Committee to monitor Microsoft's 
compliance.
    I believe Microsoft and Bill Gates have done tremendous good for 
the United States. Their products are used by millions of citizens 
and help make the economy stronger and more efficient. ! commend you 
for your efforts to settle this case and hope no further action will 
be taken on the federal level.
    I must say that I am very happy that Bill Gates is an American 
and that he was not a citizen of another foreign country as if he 
was, we would be sending checks from the United States to that 
county to purchase the excellent products that Bill Gates and 
Microsoft has delivered to our good citizens.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M. Ellis, President
    CC: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00018241

From: Tom Giebel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry. Some serious shortcomings relate to:
    (1) Middleware The current language in Section H.3 states 
``Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use 
in interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the 
context of general Web browsing)'' does nothing to limit the 
company's ability to tie customers and restrict competition in non 
Web-based networked services under .NET, as they fall ``outside 
the context of general Web browsing''. Microsoft has already 
begun abusing its desktop monopoly to tie customers int .NET revenue 
streams and set up a new monopoly over the network.
    Part 2 of the same section states ``that designated Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable 
technical requirement...'' essentially gives Microsoft a veto 
over any competitor's product. They can simply claim it doesn't meet 
their ``technical requirements.''
    (2) Interoperability
    Under the definition of terms, ``Communications 
Protocol'' means the set of rules for information exchange to 
accomplish predefined tasks between a Windows Operating System 
Product on a client computer and Windows 2000 Server or products 
marketed as its successors running on a server computer and 
connected via a local area network or a wide area network.'' 
This definition explicitly excludes the SMB/CIFS (Samba) protocol 
and all of the Microsoft RPC calls needed by any SMB/CIFS server to 
adequately interoperate with Windows 2000. Microsoft could claim 
these protocols are used by Windows 2000 server

[[Page 26536]]

for remote administration and as such would not be required to be 
disclosed. The Samba team have written this up explicitly here:
    http://linuxtoday.com/
news-story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-20-
OP-MS

(3) General veto on interoperability

    In section J., the document specifically protects Microsoft from 
having to ``document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) 
Portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of 
Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise 
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital 
rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including 
without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement 
criteria''
    Since the .NET architecture being bundled into Windows 
essentially builds ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, and authentication 
systems'' into all levels of the operating system, ANY API, 
documentation, or communication layer can fall into this category. 
This means that Microsoft never has to disclose any API by claiming 
it's part of a security or authorization system, giving them a 
complete veto over ALL disclosure.

(4) Veto Against Open Source

    Substantial amounts of the software that runs the Internet is 
``Open Source'', which means it's developed on a non-
commercial basis by nonprofit groups and volunteers. Examples 
include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. Under section J.2.c., 
Microsoft does not need to make ANY API available to groups that 
fail to meet ``reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.'' This explicitly gives them a veto over sharing any 
information with open source development projects as they are 
usually undertaken on a not-for-profit basis (and therefore would 
not be considered authentic, or viable businesses).
    These concerns can be met in the following ways:
    (1) Middleware: Extend middleware interoperability with a 
Microsoft server to ALL contexts (both within general Web browsing 
as well as other networked services such as are those being included 
under .NET).
    (2) Interoperability: Require full disclosure of ALL protocols 
between client and Microsoft server (including remote administration 
calls)
    (3) General veto on interoperability: Require Microsoft to 
disclose APIs relating to ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption, or authentication 
systems'' to all.
    (4) Veto against Open Source: Forbid Microsoft from 
discriminating between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API 
disclosure.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Giebel
    esync media, Inc.
    New York, NY 10013
    212-625-8176



MTC-00018242

From: Kendall S Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), namely:
    ï¿½The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems
    ï¿½ Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry 
by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even 
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    ï¿½ The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow 
Definitions and Provisions
    ï¿½ The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret 
APIs. but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered.
    ï¿½ The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft. NET 
with competing middleware.
    ï¿½ The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', 
but it defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows 
XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    ï¿½ The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    ï¿½ The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation 
to ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only 
after the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware 
is compatible.
    ï¿½ The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    ï¿½ The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release 
documentation about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    ï¿½ The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which 
software patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-
compatible operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are 
they not infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare 
away potential users.
    ï¿½ The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    ï¿½ Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to 
keep Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    ï¿½ Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to 
keep Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    ï¿½ Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by 
large companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the 
number of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system -
even for computers running competing operating systems such as 
Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 
consent decree.)
    ï¿½ The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    ï¿½ Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    ï¿½ The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    ï¿½ The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows 
(MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or 
Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on 
Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share in 
other areas.
    ï¿½ The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an 
effective enforcement mechanism. I also agree with the conclusion 
reached by that document, namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as 
written allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices 
to continue, would delay the emergence of competing Windows-
compatible operating systems, and is therefore not in the public 
interest. It should not be adopted without substantial revision to 
address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Kendall Hunter, Phd.
    Boulder, Colorado; Research Associate, University of Colorado



MTC-00018243

From: Downes, Scott
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:29pm
Subject: Some Comments on the Microsoft Settlement (per Tunney Act)
    Respectfully Addressed to the Department of Justice,
    I am deeply disturbed by the proposed settlement to the ongoing 
antitrust action against Microsoft. I understand that the Tunney Act 
provides me with an opportunity to offer my own comments to the 
court. Commenting on the situation is important to me as I am a 
veteran computer programmer who's seen daily the fallout from 
Microsoft's rough-shod trampling of fair play and innovation in the 
software industry.
    I am concerned that the proposed settlement does not provide 
adequate

[[Page 26537]]

deterrence to future monopolists who practice illegal anti-
competitive behavior. Microsoft has shown nothing but contempt for 
the lawful process followed by the DoJ and the legal system in 
examining this matter. They have blatantly lied in the courtroom, 
offered rigged demos (!), and attempted to take advantage of the 
lack of technical expertise shown by some witnesses, most of the 
lawyers, and each of the judges. Outside of the courtroom, they have 
continued to flout the law.
    What's worse is that Microsoft's strategy appears to have 
worked. They have stalled, lied, distracted, and manipulated the 
legal system as well as the American public, all in an effort to 
delay the resolution of their case until the beginning of a more 
corporate-friendly presidency. How can America have faith in a 
Justice Department whose direction is so clearly influenced by 
political interests? Is there truly no justice at Justice?
    Scott Downes



MTC-00018244

From: Corey May
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement was a very bad idea. Microsoft is 
getting away with it again, basically by buying their way out of 
their problems. They continue, and will continue to go on styling 
the internet and the computing world in their own image, without 
consideration for the computing public's needs and fair business 
practices.
    Please do not let this 800 pound gorilla rule the day just 
because they have unlimited funds. Please hold them accountable.
    Corey May



MTC-00018245

From: Jim Hebert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is a bad 
idea. I am in 100% agreement with all points made at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html and am co-signing the same.



MTC-00018246

From: Christopher Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Tunney Act Comments)
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am a partner in an early seed-stage venture capital firm, 
specializing in investing in the very early stages of software 
companies. As such, I am an expert on the issues faced by small 
software companies as they grow and compete in this market. Under 
the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement based on this experience.
    I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on 
the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), namely:
    a.. The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems
    a.. Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    b.. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions 
and Provisions
    a.. The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    b.. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    c.. The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    d.. The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    e.. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    f.. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    g.. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    h.. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    i.. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    c.. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    a.. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    b.. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    c.. Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system- 
even for computers running competing operating systems such as 
Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 
consent decree.)
    d.. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    a.. Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    e.. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    a.. The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    b.. The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    c.. The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows 
(MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or 
Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on 
Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share in 
other areas.
    f.. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. I also agree with the conclusion reached by 
that document, namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written 
allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices to 
continue, would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible 
operating systems, and is therefore not in the public interest.
    I also agree with Ralph Nader's letter at http://www.cptech.org/
at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html , who like myself finds the 
agreement wanting in several other areas. I find it astonishing that 
the agreement fails to provide any penalty for Microsoft's past 
misdeeds, creating both the sense that Microsoft is escaping 
punishment because of its extraordinary political and economic 
power, and undermining the value of antitrust penalties as a 
deterrent.
    The PFJ should not be adopted without substantial revision to 
address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Allen
    Alacrity Ventures
    
    1512 Walnut Street
    Berkeley, CA 94709-1513
    
    o510/649-4030 f510/649-4034



MTC-00018247

From: Christopher Travers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whome it may concern;
    I am opposed to the settlement because I think that it should be 
agreed upon by all parties involved. Several of the states have 
refused to sign off on it, so I cannot support it either.
    Please add me to the list of those opposed.
    Best Wishes,
    Chris travers

[[Page 26538]]

    Professional Consultant



MTC-00018248

From: Senour, Alethea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I have read the proposed 
settlement and I do NOT believe that the current proposal provides 
adequate reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies 
have ceased to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's 
business practices.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them.
    The market must be able to return to a state of competition.
    The current proposal is not nearly strong enough to protect the 
long-term interests of this country's businesses and consumers. 
Failure to increase the penalty will merely encourage Microsoft to 
continue its anti-competitive practices and ensure that a non-
competitive climate will exist and stifle innovation for future 
generations as well.
    Thank you for your time.
    Alethea Senour
    74 Marshall St, #2
    Medford, MA 02155



MTC-00018249

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:31pm
Subject: PFJ comments
    Please note that I have also signed the petition found at http:/
/www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. I do not have the time or 
endurance to wade through and analyze a wordy piece of legalese, so 
I am basing my comments on the various stories in the mainstream 
press.
    I have been using MS products since the late 80s and Linux since 
approximately 1994 and ``open source'' software since 
1992. I have also been a professional programmer and systems 
administrator for over 10 years.
    Since MS was found guilty in a court of US law, and the original 
penalty was breaking MS into separate companies, I want to state 
that I am not in favor of breaking up Microsoft for a couple of 
reasons, primarily because it would not fix any problems. What would 
stop the two or three new companies from colluding and sharing 
practices that would be detrimental to other companies ability to 
compete fairly? If a company that has shown itself to blatantly 
ignore the previous judgement against them, and has discovered new 
and illegal non-competitive practices in the meanwhile, would you 
trust them to play fair in the future?
    Microsoft's proposed settlement not only avoids the issue of 
guilt, but it also avoids any penalty and even goes so far as to 
further entrench Microsoft as the only viable OS. Being the richest 
company in the world, their offer to donate software and hardware 
(mostly software, which costs them nothing and gains them 
everything) is hilarious. If an individual were to be found to be 
guilty of 1st degree murder in a court of law, but happened to have 
enough money to delay the end result as long as Microsoft has, and 
then successfully bartered for a trivial penalty, our justice system 
would be considered a complete joke. Never before has one company 
held so much power. The various Windows operating systems and 
applications are used by a substantial majority of the worlds 
population. If another company innovates in any way that might 
threaten Microsoft, one of three things happens:
    (1) They buy the company. Very simple and when you have as much 
cash as Microsoft, the money it takes is very small.
    (2) Embrace and extend. This is the practice of taking a 
publicly available API and adding proprietary functionality that is 
unavailable to everyone else. For example, this was done with 
Kerberos, a package that provides secure network authentication.
    (3) They create their own version and give it away for free. 
Just to name a few: Internet Explorer(a), Windows Media Player, and 
IIS (the web server software).
    (a) Granted, Netscape did not help their case by failing to 
innovate or improve their product during time frame between version 
3 and version 4 of their respective internet browsers, during which 
the usage scale shifted from Netscape to Microsoft.
    Back to my point concerning the power of Microsoft. Due to how 
MS licenses their products and hides some if not all of their APIs, 
they have the ability to create software with which no one else may 
interact. Some examples include the NT file system (NTFS) and the 
Windows Media Player audio and video formats, and the windows file 
sharing protocol.
    The first and third examples above actually have projects that 
are attempting to reverse engineer how they work, but that work is 
slow and tedious. Currently, the Samba project has been successful 
implementing the file sharing protocol, but the efforts to reverse 
engineer NTFS seem to be stalled at reading, but not writing, the NT 
filesystem.
    Personally, I believe the best solution is a mix of opening the 
APIs and assuring that Microsoft does not engage in additional anti-
competitive practices. The future of computing will parallel the 
future of our economy, and no one company should have such a 
majority vote in how it develops.
    There may be better arguments, both in terms of eloquence and 
research, but the underlying theme of Microsoft's guilt and lack of 
pennance still remains.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin McFadden
    McLean, Virginia



MTC-00018250

From: robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    These comments are being submitted in regard to the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust case as a public comment allowed under the Tunney Act.
    I will be brief.
    The settlement as proposed offers no remedy alleviate 
Microsoft's aggressive and monopolistic practices. What the 
settlement amounts to is not so much a slap on the wrist, but a 
giant giveaway, allowing Microsoft to not only continue their anti-
competitive and anti-free market practices, but actually gives them 
leverage in markets that currently don't already own lock, stock and 
barrel (i.e. the education market).
    Robert Silvera



MTC-00018251

From: Sean Brann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am the principal of a consulting and software development 
company in Boston, Massachusetts. I am writing to express my concern 
about the Proposed Final Judgement in the Microsoft AntiTrust suit. 
There are many problems with the PFJ as it now stands, and they are 
summed up nicely in Dan Kegel's open letter (to which I am a co-
signer).
    I am particularly concerned with the following four issues:
    1. The PFJ fails to require Microsoft to release Middleware API 
documentation in a timely manner to competing Middleware vendors.
    2. The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' and ``API'' means that Section 
III.D.'s requirement to release information about Windows interfaces 
would not cover many important interfaces.
    3. Restrictions the PFJ places on use of information about 
Microsoft's undocumented APIs
    4. Although the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to license 
certain intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to require 
Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software patents 
protect the Windows APIs Thank you for allowing me to voice my 
concerns with this settlement.
    Sean T. Brann
    Principal
    Bigcity Interactive
    Boston, MA 02134
    [email protected]
    617-782-3839 Ph
    617-779-9512 Fx



MTC-00018252

From: John Queenan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a long time computer user and programmer. For purposes of 
fair disclosure, I'll say that I am primarily a Macintosh user, 
however, the realities of the computing profession naturally have 
forced me to work in other computing environments including Windows 
variations as well as open unix environments.
    I must strongly oppose the proposed settlement against 
Microsoft. I find it to be entirely unacceptable.
    Please consider postponing preliminary approval of the proposed 
settlement. The

[[Page 26539]]

settlement as written would be a killing blow to any non-Microsoft 
technology.
    I echo Apple CEO Steve Jobs:
    ``The centerpiece of Microsoft's proposed $1 billion civil 
antitrust settlement is their donation of Microsoft software, which 
they value at $830 million, to our schools,'' said Jobs. 
``We think people should know that the actual costs to 
Microsoft for this donated software will likely be under $1 million. 
We think a far better settlement is for Microsoft to give their 
proposed $1 billion-in cash-to an independent 
foundation, which will provide our most needy schools with the 
computer technology of their choice.''
    Personally, I find even this to be unacceptable and not punitive 
enough. But it would suffice if no other options were available.
    Rather than being shown a variety of operating systems and 
technologies, generations of students will experience a Microsoft-
controlled computing experience. (This is already happening thanks 
to other anti-competitive practices with OEMs in business, home and 
education markets!) Students will train using Microsoft-centric 
programming tools and techniques and then when confronted with 
competing technologies and methods they will find them lacking if 
they do not flawlessly interact with the Microsoft systems. They 
also might lack features that Microsoft enjoys due to them having 
access to Windows APIs that outside developers don't.
    Microsoft can also steal features from the competition and give 
it away. This effectively makes third-party developers 
``outside Research and Developers'' for future Microsoft 
products (assuming they aren't bought outright by Microsoft). (Apple 
Computer was often called ``R&D South'' by 
Microsoft employees; A quick glance at Windows Media Player shows 
how Microsoft wants to kill both Apple's QuickTime player and Real 
networks RealPlayer-it apes the look and feel and 
functionality of each). And since Microsoft can choose to smother a 
technology merely by making it incompatible, the student will for an 
unjustly negative opinion of the competing technology.
    Furthermore, the student will then taint all judgements and 
assessments of software and computer purchases at home and work as 
well as when they start businesses. The ``taking what you learn 
back home'' factor is huge: siblings and parents will be urged/
forced to use Microsoft products, as students rarely are taught the 
bigger picture of operating systems and programming concepts, but 
rather are sold only the Microsoft specific way of doing things.
    Additionally Microsoft corrupts open standards such as web 
languages and introduce features that only work on Windows systems. 
As a web developer I have found this to complicate my job 
immeasurably and it forces me to give up using the open standard and 
instead adopt the Windows versions. Microsoft has smothererd 
hundreds of innovations by either copying it outright (then giving 
it away for free), buying it and repackaging as it's own or making 
it incompatible with other OSes.
    This settlement is a slap on the wrist.
    Sincerely,
    John Queenan
    20 Ashford St.
    Allston MA
    02134
    Resources:
    * Apple: Microsoft should pay $1 billion-cash http://
zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-802226.html?legacy=zdnn
    * Apple CEO Jobs is Right, Microsoft Settlement is Wrong http://
www.osopinion.com/perl/story/15015.html
    * Microsoft changed Internet Explorer on Windows to break the 
Quicktime Plugin. http://news.com.com/
2100-1023-271653.html?legacy=cnet
    * Microsoft working with the CD industry to make Windows Media 
Player the default format. http://news.com.com/
2009-1023-273619.html?legacy=cnet&tag=tp-pr
    * Microsoft blocked competing browsers from MSN. http://
news.com.com/
2100-1023-274980.html?legacy=cnet&tag=tp-pr
    * Microsoft tracking your viewing habits. http://www.wired.com/
news/privacy/0,1848,49028,00.html
    * Microsoft rigs online polls to create spurious endorsements of 
their technologies over competing ones: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/
story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html
    * Microsoft lobbying campaign backfires; even dead people write 
in support of firm http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
nationworld/134332634-microlob23.html



MTC-00018253

From: Nick Bauman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a software developer with 6 years of experience in the 
field. I have found, in my experience, that the most successful and 
valueable systems developed in my lifetime are ones that promote 
implementation choice and integration choice. In short, without 
choice, there can be no innovation.
    Microsoft's overall approach toward software development is the 
antithesis of this, promoting exclusionary and lock-in tactics. If 
the Department does not change it's current tack with Microsoft 
regading the anti trust case, it will be sending a message that 
strangling innovation for the enrichment of the few is a good thing.
    In particular, the Proposed Final Judgment allows many 
exclusionary practices to continue, and does not take any direct 
measures to reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new 
entrants to the market. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft 
has a monopoly on Intel- compatible PC operating systems, and that 
the company's market position is protected by a substantial barrier 
to entry (p. 15). Furthermore, the Court of Appeals affirmed that 
Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act ? 2 for illegally maintaining 
its monopoly by imposing licensing restrictions on OEMs, IAPs 
(Internet Access Providers), ISVs (Independent Software Vendors), 
and Apple Computer, by requiring ISVs to switch to Microsoft's JVM 
(Java Virtual Machine), by deceiving Java developers, and by forcing 
Intel to drop support for cross-platform Java tools.
    The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge 
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to 
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so 
that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as 
they did earlier with Windows 3.1.
    The Proposed Final Judgment as currently written does nothing to 
prohibit certain kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional 
incompatibilities, and thus encourages Microsoft to use these 
techniques to enhance the Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming 
those consumers who use non- Microsoft operating systems and wish to 
use Microsoft applications software.
    I suggest that the DoJ revisit this judgement and provide 
language and means to compel Microsoft to maintain non-restrictive 
licensing. Also, the Proposed Final Judgment doesn't take into 
account Windows- compatible competing operating systems either. The 
Proposed Final Judgment should take steps of forbidding retaliation 
against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who support or develop alternatives to 
Windows.
    Nick Bauman
    Distributed Systems Programmer
    Minneapolis



MTC-00018254

From: Matthew James Frey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement to the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit case 
is a bad idea. I do not approve of it.
    Thank you
    Matt Frey



MTC-00018255

From: Francine Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to register my protest at the proposed settlement. 
Microsoft is getting off lightly, and I cannot see that the proposed 
settlement is going to seriously hamper its drive to monopolize the 
computer industry. As far as I can tell, all the things that ought 
to have been done to break Microsoft up and end its monopoly, 
haven't been done. Microsoft has proved that it can thumb its nose 
at our anti-monopoly laws, indeed, at our whole legal system, and 
come out unscathed. There ought to be some things that money just 
can't buy.
    Respectfully,
    Francine Taylor
    Francine Taylor
    Northwest Analytical, Inc.
    519 S.W. Park Ave.
    Portland, Oregon USA 97205-3207
    Phone: (503) 224-7727 / Fax: (503) 248-1735
    Web site: http://www.nwasoft.com



MTC-00018256

From: Roger Dickerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26540]]

    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am against the settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft as it is currently designed. Microsoft has in the past 
used its operating systems monopoly to either enter new markets or 
run its competitors out of other markets. The best known example, 
and one that was established by the court, was Netscape in the 
browser wars. Since Microsoft Internet Explorer was bundled with 
Windows, Netscape Navigator could not compete even though it was 
freely downloadable. Most consumers will not go to the trouble to 
consider other options when a software package is included in the 
price they paid for their operating system.
    Here are some more examples:
    Microsoft included WordPad beginning with Windows95. This simple 
word processor only uses the file formats used by Microsoft Word. 
Now Lotus has left the office productivity business and Wordperfect 
is a shadow of its former self; both of the competing suites were 
much less expensive than Microsoft's.
    Microsoft added networking and server capabilities to its 
operating systems, beginning marginally with Windows for Workgroups 
3.11 and in earnest with Windows NT 3.1. Now Novell is a shadow of 
its former self even though its products were consistently faster 
and more stable than Microsoft's.
    Now, after being found guilty of abusing its monopoly, Microsoft 
has released WindowsXP. This new product includes software for 
authoring CDs (competition: Roxio, Nero), updates to the Windows 
Media Player (competition: RealAudio, RealVideo, Apple Quicktime, 
WinAmp, etc). What will this bundling do to
    Microsoft's competitors? Furthermore WindowsXP will tell the 
user to join Microsoft's new Passport service -multiple 
times- during and after installation. This will give Microsoft 
the user base needed to leverage web commerce sites to pay Microsoft 
to let them use Passport.
    The current settlement agreement, it seems, will not do much to 
alter Microsoft's behavior. Microsoft will continue to use its 
monopoly drive its competitors out of business or into obscurity, 
and it will use its monopoly to force its way into new markets like 
Passport which will make the entire World Wide Web into a giant 
revenue stream for Microsoft.
    I hope you will reject the current settlement and instead 
produce remedies that will punish Microsoft for what it has done and 
prevent it from doing so in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Dickerson
    Avondale Estates, GA 30002



MTC-00018257

From: Mike Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer programmer in charge of various staff members for 
my company I find it distressing that Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices haven't been curbed. Although having a large corporation 
set standards has traditionally been a better alternative to smaller 
companies coming out with a wide array of disparate products and 
standards Microsoft's influence on the computing landscape has 
become manipulative to the point of damaging future technologies. I 
am a Visual Basic programmer (and a Java programmer also) and 
actually hold no ``religious'' fever for the downfall of 
Microsoft, they make good products, but they shouldn't be allowed to 
continued their business practice of adopt and extend for every 
product that threatens their profits.
    Please don't let this chance to reign in Microsoft's business 
practices pass by.
    Mike Wilson
    Lead Engineer
    Sony Pictures Imageworks
    (310) 840-8469



MTC-00018259

From: mike shupp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've some objections to the settlement as currently formed. 
There's a petition created by Dan Kegel which deserves your 
attention.
    -mike shupp



MTC-00018280

From: Lilley Kris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a programmer and IT professional, I have been following the 
anti-trust case against Microsoft quite closely. It is hard to 
believe, after all the evidence presented during the trial, that the 
currently proposed settlement is even being considered. I think 
Microsoft demonstrated very well after the last anti-trust suit 
against them that they will not abide by the spirit of an agreement, 
but only by the letter (and even that is arguable). Microsoft 
reduced the previous consent decree to a meaningless and 
inneffective piece of paper simply by changing their contracts with 
OEMs slightly. It had no significant effect whatsoever on their 
business practices. With that in mind, I believe that any settlement 
with Microsoft must be made air-tight. I like the idea of a 
committee to oversee Microsoft to ensure compliance with the 
eventual terms set either by a settlement, or by the court. I simply 
can't see any reason why Microsoft should be allowed to select any 
of the people that will make up the committee, though. Microsoft is 
utterly unrepentent and quite ruthless. It would be folly to give 
them any opportunity to set the committee up for failure.
    As for the terms of the proposed settlement, I believe that they 
will not adequately address the situation in a manner that will 
allow competition and innovation to thrive in the industry. 
Specifically, there are 2 areas that concern me the most:

1) Microsoft's APIs, File Formats, and Protocols.

    The complete documentation for these must be made public. Any 
future changes must also be made public in a timely manner. This 
should allow other companies to produce products that can compete 
with Microsoft's products by removing a major barrier to entry, 
namely that no company can afford to convert all of its existing 
documents into a new format in order to take advantage of a non-
Microsoft office suite or other applications. Currently anyone using 
Microsoft products is effectively ``locked in'' to those 
products because they cannot be easily converted to another format. 
While some programs exist that can read and write documents in 
Microsoft's formats, they are not entirely compatible and often fail 
on complex documents due to a lack of complete documentation 
available from Microsoft. Network effects are a particularly 
difficult barrier for companies seeking to enter a market dominated 
by another. Anything that can be done to reduce this barrier can 
only help to create more opportunity in the market. Microsoft has 
apparently inserted a clause in the current proposed settlement that 
would allow them to refuse to publish a format, protocol, or API if 
it would be a security risk. Since virtually all of
    Microsoft's formats, protocols, and APIs have some security 
component to them, I'm afraid they will use this clause to 
effectively nullify that portion of the settlement. Security 
features should work regardless of whether their mechanism is known 
or not. If this clause remains in the settlement, it should be 
modified to give the decision-making power to the oversight 
committee or to the court, and such decisions should be expedited so 
that Microsoft cannot introduce further delays to the application of 
remedies in this case.

2) Microsoft's Business Practices.

    Microsoft must not be allowed to enter into deals with OEMs, 
ISPs, or other businesses that would create disincentives or 
prohibit those companies from offering non-Microsoft products or 
services to their customers. Since the vast majority of the desktop 
computing world currently uses Microsoft products, OEMs, ISPs, and 
others must be able to offer those products to consumers. To allow 
Microsoft to continue to take advantage of that situation by 
prohibiting those companies from offering alternatives, either by 
outright prohibition, or by economic disincentive, is to allow 
Microsoft to continue to hold the industry hostage.
    If these concerns are addressed by the eventual settlement or 
court ruling, they should remove most of Microsoft's ability to 
abuse it's monopoly power to the detriment of the industry. I feel 
that a healthy IT industry should consist of competing products from 
a variety of companies, all able to interoperate with each other, 
with no single company able to leverage it's dominance in one area 
to bolster it's position in another.
    Respectfully,
    Kristopher L. Lilley
    4900 USAA Blvd. #1022
    San Antonio, TX 78240



MTC-00018285

From: Michael Tesch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:34pm
Subject: Unacceptable Microsoft Settlement Terms.

[[Page 26541]]

    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case is 
completely unacceptable. It is particularly disturbing that the 
settlement seems to be little more than a sales contract for 
Microsoft products in the schools, while exempting their anti-
competitive behavior from sanction. It is little wonder that Judge 
Jackson was infuriated with the behavior of this company.
    I urge you to work for a more substantial penalty for Microsoft, 
one that would be fair to everyone, both to their competitors and, 
more importantly, to the American public.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Tesch



MTC-00018286

From: Seth L. Blumberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in 
the Microsoft anti-trust case. I do not believe that the PFJ is an 
adequate response to Microsoft's anti-competitive practices; indeed, 
it gives Microsoft considerable leverage against what various 
internal memoranda (such as the notorious ``Halloween 
Document'') have indicated it considers its most serious 
competition, to wit, Open Source software.
    The definitions in Part VI of the PFJ differ in many ways from 
those in the Findings of Fact, to the considerable benefit of 
Microsoft. For instance, Definition J (``Microsoft 
Middleware'') as written permits Microsoft to evade designation 
of its products as middleware simply by changing the version 
numbering and/or distribution schemes, and Definition K 
(``Microsoft Middleware Product'') excludes numerous 
Microsoft products that fit the definition of middleware given by 
the Findings of Fact (including Microsoft.NET and C#, which 
Microsoft has designated as its choice to replace Java). 
Furthermore, Definition U excludes several families of Microsoft 
operating systems, such as Windows CE and Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition; programs written for Windows 2000 can in many cases be made 
to run unchanged on these operating systems.
    The worst feature of the PFJ, however, is that it permits 
Microsoft to stifle competition from the Open Source sector. ISVs 
writing operating systems that compete with Windows Operating 
Systems Products cannot use the information that the PFJ forces 
Microsoft to disclose-its use is strictly limited ``for 
the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System 
Product.'' This excludes several extant products, such as WINE.
    It is clear that the PFJ will not serve the desired 
purpose-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'' (Court of Appeals ruling, section V.D, p. 99). It must 
be extensively revised.
    Seth L. Blumberg 
    Systems Analyst, Clark Hill PLC
    These comments do not represent the opinion of Clark Hill PLC.



MTC-00018287

From: Eric Buddington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement must have teeth
    Please ensure that Microsoft faces a significant penalty for its 
illegal behavior over the last two decades. I am a software 
programmer, and I see no future in this field if I must compete 
against a company such as Microsoft, which does not seem bound by 
either standing law or previous consent decrees.
    Please ensure any settlement is *simple* and *enforceable*. A 
good settlement will ensure that Microsoft is penalized for all its 
illegal gains in the past and prevented from doing any more of the 
same. Above all, it must be *obvious* that this is true, for the 
sake of my respect for the law and my confidence in a future of 
honest work.
    Thank you,
    Eric Buddington
    Programmer and Systems Administrator
    North Adams, MA



MTC-00018288

From: John D. Chodera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the Proposed 
Final Judgement (PFJ) for the case of United States v. Microsoft. In 
short, I believe the PFJ to not be in the public's best 
interest-it is not nearly punitive enough in punishing the 
Microsoft for the anticompetitive practises it has been found by the 
court to have engaged in, nor is it comprehensive enough in 
preventing Microsoft to continue to engage in wrongdoing.
    A good summary of many specific deficiencies, all of which I 
agree with, can be found in Dan Kegel's open letter:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Thank you for your time.
    John Chodera
    300 Quintara St
    San Francisco, CA 94116-1322
    415 577-8281



MTC-00018289

From: Frank Henriquez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'm a computer programmer, living in California. I believe that 
the proposed Microsoft settlement is far too lenient, and I strongly 
OPPOSE it.
    Thank you
    Frank Henriquez
    Frank Henriquez Programmer/Analyst Jules Stein Eye Institute, 
UCLA
    [email protected] http://www.bol.ucla.edu/frank/index.htm



MTC-00018290

From: B. K. gmx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My feeling and understanding based uppon reading and discussions 
with other people relating to the Microsoft settlement leads me to 
believe the proposed settlement will not in the end keep Microsoft 
from continuing to engage in monopolistic business practices.
    Brian Keilig
    1230 Cranberry Ave
    Sunnyvale CA 94087-2003



MTC-00018291

From: Mitch Stargrove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    hello
    this settlement proposal is a TERRIBLE idea. It benefits 
Microsoft. It sounds like something from their marketing department!
    The process seems to have concluded that they deserve some 
punishment and should help society to make amends.
    Mitch Stargrove



MTC-00018292

From: Mark Whitley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse,
    (Antitrust Division)
    I would like to take advantage of the public comment period on 
the proposed Microsoft settlement to raise a few points.
    The current proposed settlement is wholly inadequate. It merely 
formalizes the status quo. It does not penalize Microsoft for past 
transgressions in any meaningful way, nor will it prevent them from 
abusing their monopoly in the future. It is my belief that a very 
strong set of strictures must be placed on convicted monopolists to 
insure that they are unable to continue their illegal activities. I 
do not think that the proposed settlement is strong enough to serve 
this function.
    I have likewise been very concerned with how this settlement was 
reached. It was done hastily and with little long-term thought. It 
is more important that we come up with a -correct- and 
-effective- remedy, than a quick 
``resolution''. Any proposed remedies must include open, 
complete, and full disclosure of all of the following Microsoft 
technologies: APIs (Application Programming 
Interfaces)-especially to their operating systems; document 
file formats; and wire protocols. Said disclosures must apply not 
only to existing technologies, but any future releases as well. 
Failure to implement such a provision will allow them to continue to 
leverage their monopoly power.
    Furthermore, any remedy imposed must consider the Open Source / 
Free Software movement that has gained momentum over the last 
several years. (For further reading, see http://www.opensource.org 
and http://www.gnu.org.) Perhaps more than any other phenomenon, 
Open Source Software represents a real, credible threat to 
Microsoft's monopoly. The current proposed settlement fails to 
address Open Source Software at all and in fact contains language 
that could seriously undermine it. The example I am thinking of is 
the proviso where Microsoft would have to disclosure some 
information to other commercial entities. This implicitly suggests 
that they

[[Page 26542]]

could happily keep that same informatino secret from the Open Source 
community, making it difficult (if not impossible) for them to write 
software that could interoperate with Microsoft's. This is not 
acceptable. (Not coincidentally, the government could set a good 
example by replacing Microsoft software with Open Source 
alternatives.)
    Perhaps the greatest abuse that Microsoft is capable of is using 
the government-granted protections on its intellectual property as a 
way to bludgeon competitors. If Microsoft is allowed to use it's 
patents, copywrites, or trademarks as a means of preventing other 
people from publishing software that could interoperate 
with-or replace-Microsoft's software, then the 
government will end up being the largest part of the problem. With 
that in mind, a provision should be put in place which explicitly 
states that Microsoft be allowed to use it's patents for defense 
only.
    The world is watching. Numerous other countries have announced 
their intent to pursue Microsoft under their own antitrust laws, 
including Austrailia, Japan, and the European Union. (Some have even 
begun already.) Many countries are waiting to see what actions the 
US will take, and then follow suit. We can set a good example by 
coming up with an effective, just, long-term solution. The current 
proposed set of remedies are inadequate; we cannot affford to set a 
bad example. Please keep in mind that Microsoft has a world-wide 
influence and that we must act with that in mind.
    Much of the discussion regarding a settlement has been couched 
in the need for aiding our slumping economy. I would submit to you 
that the current economic slump has occured not in spite of 
Microsoft, but *because* of Microsoft. I have personally both seen 
and experienced the deleterious effect that Microsoft has had on 
this industry. In the state of Utah where I live, numerous people 
(including myself) who work in the Information Technology industry 
have lost there jobs precisely because Microsoft has used their 
monopoly influence to crush them. Examples include: Novell, 
DriverSoft, WordPerfect, and Caldera. This is far from a complete 
list. The damage done by the Microsoft monopoly is neither 
theoretical nor anecdotal; it is real and tangible. If we make a 
hasty settlement now for the sake of the economy, we will be 
gambling on a dubious short-term gain and ensuring continued long-
term pain.
    Don't soft-pedal this one. Executives at Microsoft have 
demonstrated that they are not repentant for their past misdeeds. 
Witness how they have continued to leverage their monopoly power by 
bundling Windows Media Player in the most recent release of their 
Windows XP operating system. The sole reason for this was to crus 
Real, the only real competition they have in streaming media. 
Microsoft executives are not honorable people. Witness how they 
falsefied evidence and perjured themselves in federal court durring 
the hearings. They have publicly rejected the assertion that they 
are a monopoly. And have insinuated that whatever remedies the 
government imposes, they can ``work around'' them so as to 
continue with Business As Usual. Whatever remedies are put in place, 
you must assume that Microsoft *will* violate them and be prepared 
to enforce the remedies by levying additional fines and punishments. 
Thank you for your time. I hope you will consider sincerely the 
points I have raised.
    Mark Whitley
    [email protected]



MTC-00018293

From: Sam Bayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Folks-
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement doesn't even begin 
to address the antitrust violations which have been repeatedly 
affirmed. I urge you to reject this settlement and adopt one which 
will support genuine competition.
    Cordially,
    Samuel Bayer



MTC-00018294

From: Ron Goodheart
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea.
    As a software developer I've suffered from Microsoft's practices 
and its effects upon the software industry.
    We cannot know what the industry would have been like without 
the predatory practices, however we do know that it was wrong.
    Let's fix it-not settle.



MTC-00018295

From: Nate Sammons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I just wanted to put my two cents in on the proposed settlement 
for the Microsoft anittrust case, and to say that I think it's a 
very bad idea.
    -nate
    Nate Sammons [email protected]



MTC-00018296

From: Rob Orsini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata Hesse,
    I feel like the proposed Microsoft Settlement is truly unfair 
and does nothing to punish this monopolizing corporation or set a 
reasonable precedence for cases like this in the future.
    As a single individual, I would feel helpless were I to try to 
stand up for my rights against Microsoft. I belive in my heart that 
if our county cannot stand up to Microsoft with firm punitive action 
then our future is truly grim.
    Thank you for your effort,
    Robert Orsini
    Robert J. Orsini mailto:[email protected]
    NNS Software LLC Tel: 707.347.1668
    921 Transport Way, Suite 26 Fax: 707.347.1666
    Petaluma, California USA 94954 Mobile: 707.580.2035
    http://www.nnsllc.com/ Direct: 707.347.1660



MTC-00018297

From: hook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is bad idea
    joshua corning



MTC-00018298

From: Ben Galbraith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have reviewed the proposed settlement with Microsoft, and I 
find it unsatisfactory. As an IT industry professional, I am 
especially concerned with how the issue of Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices are resolved.
    I am therefore writing you this e-mail to express to you my 
concerns, with the hopes that you are able to take my concerns and 
those of others and use them to craft a more effective settlement 
that results in increase competition and prosperity for our economy.
    My concerns are identical to those concerns outlined in this 
URL: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    I would appreciate it if you would take these concerns into 
account and modify the current proposed settlement.
    Thank you,
    Ben Galbraith
    Chief Information Officer
    uSight.com



MTC-00018299

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:28pm
Subject: MIcrosoft settlement
    The settlement leaves out any remedies that address Microsoft's 
ability to impose a tax on every personal computer sold. When I 
purchased my first PC year's ago I could not find one PC distributor 
that would sell a machine without Microsoft's operating system 
preinstalled.
    Even thought I had no intention of running Microsoft's software, 
I had to pay the tax. The situation has changed very little, in 
today's market place the vast majority of distributors of PC's 
require you to pay the Microsoft tax.
    Software should be a separate purchase leaving the consumer the 
ability of running other operating systems if they choose. And 
preventing Microsoft from requiring personnel computer manufactors 
and distributors to license their software for every machine sold, 
through the use of volume discounts and other methods.
    The fact that the settlement does little to force Microsoft from 
revealing the API's (Application Programming Interfaces) and 
document formats insures that the behavior the settlement is 
supposed to correct will continue on into the future. Microsoft only 
has to claim that by doing so threatens their intellectual property 
or that it comprises the security of their software and this 
information will not be available.

[[Page 26543]]

    Some mechanism or process to insure that they do not hide behind 
this clause to simple disadvantage the competition.
    Also the panel that will supervise this settlement is strongly 
influenced by Microsoft, in their ability to choose who sits on it. 
Isn't this to much like the fox supervising the hen house?
    I am a system administrator for the Tribune Corp, administering 
both Windows and Unix systems. My opinions
    are my own and in no way reflect those of my employer....
    George Leon
    System Administrator
    Tribune CoOpportunity
    610-508-1509
    [email protected]



MTC-00018300

From: Peschko, Edward
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:37pm
Subject: Re: tunney act-settlement proposal by government 
ps-forgot to give the following info in the previous letter I 
sent w/ the above title- it was from:
    Edward S. Peschko
    1126E Reeves Court,
    San Francisco CA, 94130
    650.464.2156
    thanks-and to reiterate the point of my letter, I STRONGLY 
oppose the DOJ's proposed ``settlement'', it should be 
struck down immediately and replaced with something much more severe 
opposing Microsoft.



MTC-00018301

From: Isaac Wedin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in opposition of the proposed Final Judgment 
resolving the antitrust case against Microsoft.
    There are many problems with the settlement, but I am 
specifically concerned that the judgment does nothing to address the 
existing barriers to entry for competing office software suites. 
Competition will only occur in the market for PC operating systems 
when office suites and programs (like StarOffice, Gnumeric, and 
Abiword) for competing operating systems (like Linux) can reliably 
open and make changes to files created using the industry-standard 
office suite, Microsoft Office.
    Microsoft should be required to publish the full details of the 
file formats used by all of the programs in Microsoft Office, but 
most importantly Microsoft Word and Excel.
    Sincerely,
    Isaac Wedin



MTC-00018302

From: jeff
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find any settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust case 
insulting. So I must voice my position about the current settlement 
and let it be known I am strongly against it. Microsoft was found 
Guilty of being a Monopoly and continue to operate as one to this 
day. Microsoft's OEM licensing that restricts PC manufacturerors 
from installing other OS'es alongside any Microsoft OS should be 
enough on it's own to land them in serious legal trouble, but 
somehow it doesn't. Microsoft is in the buisness of killing 
companies first, inovating and delivering product second. This 
behavor should not be allowed. I don't want to wake up one morning 
to be told I can't brush my teeth because my license on my Microsoft 
toothbrush has expired, and I can't by a non-Microsoft toothbrush 
because they aren't built with trusted hardware.
    Jeff Buttars
    [email protected]



MTC-00018303

From: Justin Deri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a software developer and therefore a frequent computer user, 
I'm very concerned about the DOJ's Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) 
with regards to the Microsoft Settlement. Although there are many 
other issues, I've outlined my highest priorities below:
-The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents. No part of the PFJ 
obligates Microsoft to release any information about file formats, 
even though undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry (see ``Findings of Fact'' 
?20 and ? 39).
-Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows. Many Windows APIs, 
including Media Encoder, are shipped by Microsoft as add-on SDKs 
with associated redistributable components. Applications that wish 
to use them must include the add-ons, even though they might later 
become a standard part of Windows. Microsoft often provides those 
SDKs under End User License Agreements (EULAs) prohibiting their use 
with Open Source applications. This harms ISVs who choose to 
distribute their applications under Open Source licenses; they must 
hope that the enduser has a sufficiently up-to-date version of the 
addon API installed, which is often not the case.
-Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems. The 
Microsoft Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++, is the 
primary toolkit used by ISVs to create Windows-compatible 
applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: 
``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute 
. . . the Redistributable Components . . . 
provided that (a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only 
in conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product . . .'' 
This makes it illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++ on 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
-Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems. As the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit demonstrates, it is a valid concern that as 
competing operating systems emerge which are able to run Windows 
applications, Microsoft might try to sabotage Windows applications, 
middleware, and development tools so that they cannot run on non-
Microsoft operating systems, just as they did earlier with Windows 
3.1.
-Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any 
OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
-The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Sincerely,
    Justin L Deri
    Cambridge, MA



MTC-00018304

From: Adam N. Clayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement does not punish Microsoft for 
its past and current practices. It needs to be revised and 
strengthened before it will cause Microsoft to change their ways.
    Adam Clayton



MTC-00018305

From: Kyle R Krom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the currently proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft case, and I will be very brief in explaining some of 
my reasons. (Disclaimer: My opinion is my own, and does not 
represent that of BASF Corporation) I make my living as an 
administrator of UNIX systems and a developer of UNIX applications. 
Working with alternative operating systems is very challenging; not 
out of necessity, but because of anti-competitive behaviour from 
Microsoft. Microsoft's monopoly forces companies (and even 
government agencies) to use Windows operating systems and other 
Microsoft software applications. Any competing operating systems and 
applications must therefore be compatible with Microsoft's software 
in order to be accepted in a corporate environment. According to the 
Findings of Fact, Microsoft exploits this situation by knowingly 
producing artificial Barriers of Entry, in order to prevent 
competitors from being able to produce Microsoft-compatible 
products. This behaviour severely inhibits the ability of developers 
to innovate new products. Nobody has any interest in a new software 
application, if it is incompatible with Microsoft's widespread 
software.
    In an attempt to remove the Barriers of Entry for Microsoft 
competitors, the settlement proposes that Microsoft should be forced 
to publish some of its products'' API's. This is a fine idea, 
but it is implemented poorly. For example, the list of affected 
middleware specifically includes Microsoft Java (which Microsoft 
intends to discontinue) but not Microsoft.NET (which Microsoft is 
hailing as the successor). It includes Outlook Express, but not the 
more commonly used

[[Page 26544]]

Outlook. It includes free software such as Internet Explorer and 
Media Player, but not Microsoft Office (in fact, even the file 
formats for Office documents will not be published-how can a 
competing office suite survive if it cannot even reliably read and 
produce Microsoft Office compatible documents?). Also, the 
settlement affects current Microsoft operating systems such as 
Windows 2000 and Windows XP, but not their ``next-
generation'' operating systems such as Windows CE or Pocket PC. 
On the whole, it seems that the Barriers of Entry to Microsoft's 
major applications will remain quite intact. There are several minor 
loopholes in the settlement, with major implications. For example, 
the last paragraph of Definition J in the settlement goes out of its 
way to create a loophole whereby new versions of middleware products 
can avoid being affected by these restrictions, simply by failing to 
adhere to a specific version numbering system. I have to wonder 
whether such portions of the agreement were written solely by 
Microsoft's executives and ignored by the Department of Justice! 
Microsoft has certainly set numerous precedents of finding loopholes 
in previous anti-competitive restrictions; don't provide them with 
new ones.
    I am also concerned about how the settlement's measures will be 
enforced. What will happen if Microsoft violates the current 
agreement? Another trial that drags on for years, costs millions of 
dollars, and concludes with another poorly constructed settlement 
that contains no actual punishment?
    Microsoft's behaviour is anti-competitive, anti-innovative, and 
anti-cooperative. It hurts software developers, and consequently it 
hurts consumers. If the Department of Justice refuses to punish this 
behaviour, it should at least prevent the behaviour from continuing. 
The current settlement proposal does not.
    Kyle Krom, Ph. D.
    UNIX Administrator
    BASF Corporation



MTC-00018306

From: Bill Toole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Wednesday, January 23, 2002 03:29:59 PM
    Proposed Microsoft settlement is NOT good.
    Bill Toole
    432 East 10th Street 4fl
    New York NY 10009
    Tel/Fax: 212 533 4631
    e-mail : << [email protected] >
    www : << http://www.speakeasy.org/toole >



MTC-00018307

From: T. Charles Yun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As the time for comment draws to a close, I wanted to mention 
that the news bits, rumors and ``facts'' as they have been 
presented to the public regarding the Microsoft case have distressed 
me. Overall, I believe that Microsoft has not been given a 
punishment that is fit for their activities. Further, the idea that 
Microsoft would like to offer their own software as retribution for 
their activities is ludicrous.
    I went to school at the School of Information, University of 
Michigan, where we studied topics related to information science, 
public policy and economics. In fact, one of the graduate degrees is 
entitled ``Information Economics, Management and Policy.'' 
A great deal of academic and real world experience has shown that 
corporations that sell software/information respond differently to 
the traditional (in terms of companies that sell a physical product) 
rules of business. I will refrain from starting a tutorial, but 
wanted to note that it costs nothing for a software company to give 
away copies of their software.
    Punishment, in general, is generally best when it falls in 
between what the accused and the accusors publicly state. In that 
light, Microsoft's idea of punishment is definitely at the low end. 
Further, it is important to note that Microsoft was not willing to 
give away cash money, access to software source code/APIs or any 
other item that would actually cause them pain.
    With that said, I admit that I am not a lawyer. I will not 
assume the knowledge to dole out the appropriate punishment, but 
simply offer my viewpoint that Microsoft should be punished in a 
manner that does not let them escape their misdeeds.
    Thank you for your time and efforts.
    -T. Charles Yun
    [The opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect 
the opinions Internet2 of my employer or any organizations 
associated with Internet2.]



MTC-00018308

From: Andrew Kuan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. The original proposal from Judge Jackson to split 
Microsoft into two separate companies, one of which creates 
application software and the other of which creates operating system 
software makes much more sense. The root of the problem with 
Microsoft's monopoly is that they have a conflict of interest: 
Microsoft provides the operating system for which both they and 
their competitors develop applications. While the existence of 
monopoly conditions in the operating system market is not inherently 
bad, Microsoft unfortunately abuses its monopoly in order to force 
competitors in the application software market out of business.
    This is anti-competitive, anti-innovation, and counter to the 
interests of American consumers.
    Again, I am very much against the current terms of the proposed 
settlement as they do little to prevent Microsoft from abusing their 
monopoly power and engaging in anti-competitive practices again. The 
call to split Microsoft in two should be reconsidered.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Kuan



MTC-00018309

From: Zach Pousman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the Microsoft settlement is a bad thing for us. It 
lets a company get away with destroying their competition and then 
pretending like ``that's the way the free market works''.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
    Zach Pousman
    Zach Pousman
    Assistant Director of Technology
    [email protected]
    [ph] 404 727 5126
    [fx] 404 727 9702
    Center for Behavioral Neuroscience
    http://www.cbn-atl.org



MTC-00018310

From: Will Berry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    My name is Will Berry and I am a natural-born US citizen from 
Atlanta GA. The purpose of this e-mail is to contribute my comments 
on the proposed settlement between Microsoft Corporation and the US 
Department of Justice, pursuant to the Tunney Act. I am not pleased 
at all with the terms of the proposed settlement. I believe the 
proposed settlement is in effect a license for Microsoft to continue 
to break the law.
    Thanks to the efforts of the DOJ, many States, and others, 
Microsoft has been found by the courts to be a predatory monopolist 
with no regard for responsible behavior in a competitive market. 
Microsoft has done severe, if not irreparable, damage to the 
operating system and browser markets.
    They have strong-armed their operating system distributors, 
similarly to the offenses of Standard Oil with the railroad 
companies, coercing them not to sell competing operating systems, or 
forcing them to pay for MS Windows even if the computer does not 
ship with MS Windows. (This practice has even become known in high-
tech culture as the ``Microsoft Tax''.) They have strong-
armed Apple Computer and others by influencing which features and 
software are included in their products, to the inherent harm of the 
consumer. And this is a telling thing: they continue to deny that 
they have done anything wrong. As Microsoft has demonstrated over 
and over again, they will be exactly as responsible in the market as 
the government forces them to be, not a bit more. Microsoft must be 
held accountable for its actions. Let me be clear: Microsoft will 
not stop breaking the law until and unless they are *punished*. This 
proposed settlement will not punish Microsoft; it will enable them.
    The ``Technical Committee'' provided for in the 
settlement is a farce. Why would Microsoft choose one of the three 
members? Why would the committee not have power to enforce the 
settlement or levy fines, as opposed to simply monitoring the 
situation? The details of this arm of the proposed settlement are 
riddled with flaws. If the court accepts this, then the committee 
will become a shield for Microsoft when (I do not say ``if')

[[Page 26545]]

Microsoft continues its illegal business practices. After all, if 
the committee approves....
    This is not punishment; it is government endorsement of 
Microsoft's behavior. The settlement allows Microsoft to withhold 
technical information from any individual or organization, as long 
as they say they do not certify the ``authenticity and 
viability of its business''. This is a gaping loophole, 
allowing Microsoft to continue its old practices by labeling its 
products and other organizations differently. Furthermore, when 
Microsoft continues its illegal acts, it will be harder to sue them 
because they will be abiding by the settlement agreement! This is 
not punishment. It is government approval to break the law. Why does 
the settlement not force divestiture of certain Microsoft ventures? 
Why does the settlement not fine Microsoft one red cent? Why is the 
Technical Committee not allowed to disclose its findings to the 
public? Why does the settlement not punish Microsoft? Why do you 
think Microsoft is so happy about the settlement?
    If you ask me, the Windows and Office divisions of Microsoft 
should both be ordered divested, and no Microsoft employees or board 
members or their families should be allowed to manage or serve on 
the boards of the new companies or own more than 0.1% of their stock 
for twenty years. Failing that, Microsoft should at the very least 
be fined half of its gross revenue for the next ten years. That 
would at least be punishment. At least that would cause them to 
think twice about repeating their egregious abuses of our free 
market economy.
    Think for a moment on Microsoft's ``warnings'' of what 
would happen should actual punishment be levied against them. They 
say the market will suffer if they are punished. Even if their 
predictions are true, which I doubt, is this not an implicit 
admission of their pestilence? For Microsoft IS the market, and 
therefore to punish Microsoft is to directly damage the market. Or 
at least they say so. This is all the more reason to punish them 
harshly, and allow the market to repair itself. After all, they did 
break the law.
    This nation passed Anti-Trust legislation to prevent exactly 
this sort of phenomenon from occurring.
    Standard Oil was damaging its market, and in doing so was 
damaging the entire nation's economy.
    Microsoft is following in its footsteps; the courts have found 
this to be true. The Sherman Act was passed because the free market 
itself cannot repair this kind of damage; the government must 
intervene to keep the market healthy. Microsoft's behavior cannot 
continue!
    I say to the Courts, to the States, and to the Department of 
Justice: Do not let Microsoft get stinking rich from their illegal, 
atrocious business practices. Do not let crime pay for them. This 
responsibility falls squarely on your shoulders; the public is 
depending on you to protect us from these predators.
    Do your job; reject this settlement!
    Will Berry
    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00018311

From: James Morgan Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is not a 
sufficient remedy for their actions. Microsoft is and continues to 
be an oppressive monopoly. Even after repeated ruling and decisions 
by this and other courts, Microsoft has continued with the same 
business practices. Microsoft executive have yet to concede that 
Microsoft is actually a monopoly or that its actions have been in 
any way wrong.
    I personally feel that many of Microsoft's actions have been 
detrimental to the computer industry and potentially many other 
industries. There are many quality products that are not able to 
enter the market because of Microsoft's dominance. In addition, 
there have been many smaller companies either bought-out or run out 
of business by Microsoft's actions.
    Microsoft forces its will on OEMs and others by preventing or 
discouraging them from making or selling products with or for non-
Microsoft systems. The proposed settlement does not go far enough to 
either remedy Microsoft's previous actions or to ensure me that 
Microsoft's practices will be stopped. There are many sections and 
definitions that are vary narrow or ambiguous and could potentially 
be completely circumvented by later Microsoft products. In addition, 
certain intellectual property such as file formats are not required 
to be disclosed. I feel that Microsoft's proprietary file formats 
have allowed them to gain dominance any other areas, such as office 
applications, since competing applications are not able to easily 
convert documents in the Microsoft format.
    I feel that these anti-trust actions are the last any only 
mechanism left to prevent or erode the Microsoft monopoly. Many 
companies have tried and failed to compete with Microsoft in a 
``fair'' open market. If the Department of Justice and the 
US Government can not or will not require a stronger settlement, 
then there will be little hope for any other company to challenge 
Microsoft in the future.
    While I understand the court and Microsoft's desire to settle 
and prevent further legal cost and hassle, I do not think that 
agreeing to this settle for the sake of settlement is acceptable. I 
ask that the Department of Justice reconsider this settlement in 
favor of a more strict and carefully worded decision.
    Thank you for you time and consideration.
    James Morgan Harrison, II
    Starkville, Mississippi
    Computer Science graduate and part-time UNIX Systems 
Administrator
    Mississippi State University



MTC-00018312

From: Gary Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement proposed by the Department of Justice 
is flawed and will do very little to improve competition in the 
software industry. It is full of loopholes that will allow Microsoft 
to continue its past behavior in maintaining its monopoly, and will 
actually protect it from future action.
    The proposed settlement is poorly written, and insufficient 
means of enforcement are provided.
    If you consider how few companies in the computer industry have 
stood up against the monopolist and maid their voices on this matter 
known, it becomes clear that they are all afraid to fight back. This 
is how a monopolist maintains their monopoly.
    The proposed settlement is not in the public interest.
    Gary Hale
    Gary Hale Digital Services
    Email: [email protected]
    Web: http://www.ghdigital.com/
    Address: 94340 Horton Road Blachly OR 97412
    Phone/FAX: 541-925-4130



MTC-00018313

From: Mark Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing in regard to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case, under the authority granted by the Tunney 
act for public comment.
    I believe that the proposed settlement is both insufficient in 
scope and unfair in its particulars. It neither punishes Microsoft 
for having engaged in monopolistic behaviors, nor does it remediate 
the environment in order to prevent those behaviors from continuing. 
For Microsoft to be allowed to, essentially, garner more public good 
will by ``donating'' money to an organization they help 
create is both hypocritical and ridiculous. It is my hope that the 
court will reconsider but the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of 
the settlement.
    Thank you for your time and attention,
    Mark Greene



MTC-00018314

From: Jonathan Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am 19 and am running linux now and it is much better than 
windows. Linux is not a corporation, a brand, or even an independant 
entity so much as it is the foundation of a new way to compute. An 
open, extensible, publicly owned foundation upon which anyone can 
``embrace and extend'', in true meaning of the phrase. 
Linux is freedom. Winston Churchill once said that Americans always 
do the right thing after they have exhausted all other options, 
Americans will choose freedom in the realm of computing.
    Make microsoft's punishment a punishment. Cold hard cash speaks 
volumes and is another expression of freedom, saying, here I am, 
worth, spend me as you may. Microsoft offers oppression and control, 
aid in liberation.
    Thank You,
    Jonathan Robinson.

[[Page 26546]]



MTC-00018315

From: Steve Cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am opposed to the settlement with Microsoft because it does 
not restrict Microsofts practices towards OEMs. These practices 
remove ability for competitive operating systems to gain a foothold.
Steve
    Steve Cannon [email protected]
    [desk] 212 594 1955 x 112 [mobile] 917 541 6456
    307 W. 38th Street #901 new york, ny 10018



MTC-00018316

From: Maki, Daisuke
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the proposed settlement, as it does not solve 
the bottom line of this case: It does NOT prevent/punish Microsoft 
for bundling everything in its OS for free. As we progress in our 
technology, who knows whatever else Microsoft may be willing to 
bundle with its Windows operationg system? Just look at what it has 
now:
    1-a web browser
    2-a mail client
    3-an all-encompassing media player
    Those are the major components. How are software developers to 
create their own versions of any of the above, it it all comes free 
with Microsoft's OS? There *is* no competition as it is. I'm 
surprised other multimedia player vendors are not actively suing 
Microsoft as it is.
    If the proposed settlement does get approved, we will just allow 
Microsoft to continue on with its anti-competitive practices, I'm 
sure we will see another anti-trust case, but with another product 
like the Netscape web browser as its main example.
-d



MTC-00018317

From: Ryan Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:44pm
Subject: Issues with the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    After some review of the proposed Microsoft Settlement, I have 
found fatal weakness in it. They are as follows:
    1. Definition A should state that an API is simply an interface 
between applications and the operating system. Narrowing this 
definition is not only inaccurate, but opens a pandoras box of loop 
holes for Microsoft.
    2. Definitions J and K are also too narrowed, so much so that 
they exclude their real meanings. Middleware is simply software, or 
a part of software, that mediates between an application and a 
network. Microsofts .NET strategy will tend to combine OS updates, 
middleware, and end-ware applications. Anything other than an 
accurate definition, accounting for the fact that middleware can 
exist as parts of other programs, will not pertain to many soon to 
be released products and be too easily circumnavigateable.
    3. Definition U should simply state ``Any operating system 
produced by Microsoft.''
    4. While Section III.I is very helpful, it should go further to 
require Microsoft specifically explain which software patents 
protect the Windows API.
    5. While this settlement makes an attempt to protect OEM's from 
Microsoft, unfortuneately too many loop holes still exist, leaving 
OEM's, especially smaller OEM's, subject to retaliation. Anything 
short of consistent per unit published prices period, will allow for 
such retaliation.
    6. No tricky licenses! Microsoft needs to be restricted to 
licensing practices that do not dictate the operating platform the 
product is to be used with, restrict free software development, or 
otherwise restrict a products use to hinder Microsoft competitors.
    7. Consistent and published file formats. When Microsoft changes 
file formats, it stifles competition and innovation, while forcing 
their own users to upgrade by way of sheer market leverage. Properly 
designed file formats rarely need to be changed or overhualed, and 
surely not with every product release. Storing information is quite 
straightforward, yet Microsoft surely has succeeded in innovating 
ever more complex ways to store it. Restricting file format changes 
and forcing Microsoft to publish existing ones is necessary. This 
would greately benifit the exchange of information, and helping to 
solve one of the most common issues faced by Microsoft and non-
Microsoft users alike.
    Thanks for your careful consideration of these issues,
-Ryan
    Ryan Cole
    Programmer Analyst
    www.iesco-dms.com
    707-468-5400



MTC-00018318

From: Jonathan Mayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:44pm
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 Tunny Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I am very disappointed in what I perceive as the DOJ losing its 
nerve and snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory in the 
Microsoft anti-trust battle.
    When I was young, brilliant software engineers were able to 
create new products and turn these innovative products into billion 
dollar industries. Borland, Autodesk, Lotus, and Oracle are only a 
few examples-a list of examples that should have included 
Netscape. Their example inspired me to follow in their footsteps 
into what looked to be a bright new dawn.
    Today, instead of a vital, innovative, freely competing software 
economy, we have a captured ``economy in a bottle.'' We 
have an economy in a bottle, where the ants inside struggle with 
each other for survival, while Microsoft securely tightens the lid.
    Software engineers are still free to invent brilliant ideas and 
start companies, but we live at Microsoft's leisure. At best, a 
successful software company will be acquired and integrated into 
Microsoft. At worst, the penalty for success is to be imitated and 
undermined by a company with gross competetive advantage: a 
stranglehold on the tools and standards that are the gateways of our 
industry.
    Microsoft is running the game, setting the rewards of the game, 
and is guaranteeing that no company will ever grow to the point that 
allows them to upset the software hierarchy that Microsoft 
dominates. They have repeatedly demonstrated their ability and 
willingness to abuse their market control to put down competitors 
that grow too ``uppity.'' If the legal remedy against 
Microsoft's monopolistic dominance of the software industry fails 
(as it is about to do), there will never be a second chance. The 
software industry, which could have been America's most vital and 
powerful industry, will wither and spoil. The power of information 
technology to revolutionize productivity, communication, and quality 
of life on earth cannot be underrated. Leaving that power in the 
hands of a demonstrably abusive monopolist is a betrayal of the law, 
a betrayal of the capitalist system, and a betrayal of our future.
    The proposed settlement agreement fails in every way to remedy 
this problem. Microsoft can not be tamed or trained to behave 
itself-it must be unseated from the reigns of power.
    Thanks for listening.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Mayer 
    Mountain View, CA.



MTC-00018319

From: Erwin, Christopher
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:44pm
Subject: Opposed to the Settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement offered by the DOJ in the 
Microsoft case. I am a data analyst by profession and a computer 
programmer by hobby. I would like to start my own software company, 
but I feel that it would be foolish to do so because of one 
fundamental cause: software business that is successful today will 
be Microsoft's business tomorrow.
    The findings of fact in the Microsoft case are not in dispute. 
Microsoft is a monopoly and they use their monopoly power illegally 
to stifle competition and invade new markets. Why should I risk 
innovation in the face of such a foe?
    The proposed settlement will do nothing to redress Microsoft's 
past crimes, and the restriction on future behavior are so minor as 
to allow Microsoft to select the majority of it's own regulating 
body. Furthermore, Microsoft will be allowed to re-frame it's 
business practices in the name of ``security'' and be 
basically immune from the conditions of the settlement. A real 
penalty would redress the past illegal behavior and prevent such 
behavior in the future. The current settlement does neither.
    As an aside, who settles a trial in the penalty phase? Is that a 
little like forfeiting when you've already won?

[[Page 26547]]

    Christopher Erwin
    2030 W. 28th
    Eugene, OR 97405



MTC-00018320

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust 
case is a bad idea that ultimately rewards Microsoft and influences 
a generation of school students to the false idea that Microsoft is 
the only viable software for PC's, thus tightening their virtual 
stanglehold on the market.
    Ken Laird
    [email protected]
    Agilent Technologies
    Spokane Site
    AT&T: (509) 921-3656
    24001 E. Mission, Liberty Lake, WA 99019
    Telnet: 1-921-3656



MTC-00018321

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the current settlement proposal.
    Hector Vasquez
    MicroComputer Application Specialist
    The University of Texas-Pan American
    Learning Assistance Center
    STUS 627
    1201 W. University Drive
    Edinburg, TX 78539



MTC-00018322

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that allowing Microsoft to ``settle'' 
for a free (to them) ``solution'', in which they get 
access to a market (schools) which has been a weak point for them so 
far, is contradictory to the spirit of the lawsuit. It would give 
them MORE control over the industry, MORE sway over children, whose 
mindsets haven't yet frozen, and would end up getting Microsoft that 
much more mindshare/marketshare.
    The settlement where Microsoft gets to do this is VERY bad, 
should not be accepted, and would be a serious miscarriage of 
justice if it were to go through.
    I'd like to see them split into four pieces: Operating systems, 
Office, Internet, and the rest. None of these companies could 
cooperate with the others except through public documentation for 20 
years. If that makes them fail, too bad.
    Howard S Shubs
    ``Run in circles, scream and shout!'' ``I hope 
you have good backups!''
    Aren't there any networked SJFs around?



MTC-00018323

From: Ben Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is insufficient. Please review 
this essay for reasons why.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Ben Ford
    Yakima, WA



MTC-00018324

From: Mike G.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a poor idea. After reading 
up on the final proposal, I was surprised and discouraged to find 
that it is too lenient, contains too many loopholes, and would allow 
the company to continue to lock-in users rather than allowing choice 
and competition. It is not without reason that half the states 
involved in the case are still pushing for heavier penalties.
    Do not forget that Microsoft is a repeat offender. A federal 
district court and an appeals court have both affirmed that 
Microsoft is a de facto monopoly and that it has abused its monopoly 
profits and market position to engage in anticompetitive ways even 
after an earlier antitrust case. Microsoft has clearly shown that 
comprehensive remedies and strict enforcement are necessary to hold 
it accountable for and to prevent further unlawful and predatory 
behavior.



MTC-00018325

From: C. Michael McCallum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hereby go on record as against the proposed DOJ Microsoft 
settlement. The reasons are many.
    Such figures as Judge Robert Bork and Ralph Nader have said it 
would EXTEND, not reduce Microsoft's monopoly (which is of course, a 
finding of fact). Enough reason for me is the fact that the 
settlement does not appear to meet the requirement to 
``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct''. Many 
inportant APIs will go undocumented.
    Microsoft is not required to disclose technical requirements of 
new releases in advance.
    Middleware vendors will learn of API documentation too late for 
effective coordination.
    Patents remain undisclosed.
    I see many more things wrong with this proposed settlement than 
right.
    I urge the rejection of this settlement.
    Respectfully,
    Charles Michael McCallum
    Elk Grove, CA
    C. Michael McCallum
    ``That may be one tough nut to crack,
    Associate Professor
    but I am one determined
    Chemistry, UOP
    little squirrel''
    [email protected]
    (209) 946-2636, fax (209) 946-2607



MTC-00018326

From: Christian Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As per the Tunney Act, please consider the following in regards 
to the proposed microsoft settlement: It does not sufficiently 
compensate consumers for our loss due to lack of competition.
    A more appropriate and punitive responce would be to require, at 
a minimum, that Microsoft allow hardware vendors to sell computers 
WITHOUT forcing consumers to buy Microsoft software, and without any 
fees for doing so.
    In my experience with software developers, and VC funding, there 
is widespread belief that creating a product that in any way 
competes with Microsoft now, or where Microsoft may want to go in 
the future, will result in anti-competitive behavior on the behalf 
of Microsoft.
    This has drastically hindered software advances in the US, and 
abroad.
-christian



MTC-00018327

From: Abraxas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors. Monopolies completely 
broken up in the past were less influential, powerful, and anti-
competitive than Microsoft is now.
    Charles J. Martin
    75 Davis Road,
    Westport MA, 02790



MTC-00018328

From: Jeremy Farabaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to the chorus of those opposed to 
this settlement.
    There are many parts I disagree with, but the one I feel most 
strongly about is this:
    Overlooked in this settlement is the issue of file formats, 
specifically file formats of Microsoft's ubiquitous Office Suite. 
The closed nature of these file formats allows Microsoft to not only 
bar third party applications from competing, but also requires users 
to purchase new versions of Microsoft's products in order to 
continue using and sharing these documents with others.
    Please take my comments into consideration.
    Jeremy Farabaugh



MTC-00018329

From: Marcus Gaines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings. I am writing to oppose the terms of the tentative 
settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case. I Believe that the 
settlement will not reduce or stop Microsoft Corporation's anti-
competetive practices. One specific aspect with which I take issue 
is the fact that The PFJ does not require

[[Page 26548]]

Microsoft to release documentation about the format of Microsoft 
Office documents. I am a technology specialist for a public school 
district. In my job I support systems both with and without 
Microsoft office. The lack of documentation of Microsoft Office's 
file formats makes it very difficult to find good ways to get our 
office software to intercommunicate. The decision by Microsoft Corp. 
to keep their file formats proprietary and closed is a clear attempt 
to discourage the use of other Office suites by leveraging the large 
market share enjoyed by Microsoft Office. If a competing suite will 
not read Microsoft file formats, its users are at a competetive 
disadvantage since they may have their communication with Microsoft 
Office users obfuscated. Thank you for your time and for your 
consideration of this matter.
Marcus Gaines
Technology Systems Specialist
Windsor Unified School District
Windsor, Ca.



MTC-00018330

From: Jon Pfaff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, ladies and gentlemen: Living in Seattle, 
I have been bombarded with the superficial news reports of Microsoft 
monopolistic tendencies. These reports do not even come close to the 
actual nefarious activities to which Microsoft people resorted to 
squash competitors. The tactics can only be called restraint of 
trade.
    There are widely circulated, via the net, stories of loading the 
Windows operating system with ``poison code'' to render 
useless the application products of other companies. People I know 
who worked at Microsoft as temps, can relate incredible tales of 
directives from top management to sabotage the ability to use with 
Windows, any product which might compete with Microsoft Word and 
Excel.
    Microsoft management has consistently bragged about their 
innovations. They have not innovated anything! They buy, purloin and 
out and out steal code from other products, then use their huge 
economic clout to push Microsoft product on users. They have 
purchased potential competitors and either buried that technology, 
or turned it into a Windows/Microsoft application which sucked.
    To punish Microsoft by ``forcing them'' to provide 
hardware and software to schools is to put the fox into the hen 
house. It gives them the opportunity to monopolize one area of 
computer use they have never been able to crack. One would have to 
wonder how much the person who instituted such a 
``penalty'' was getting paid by Microsoft. If the 
computers they were required to donate were made by Apple, or used 
either the Mac or Linux OS, then Microsoft would still be able to 
donate ``Office for the Mac'', which, incidentally, is the 
best piece of non-buggy software Microsoft has ever marketed.
    To sum up: Microsoft is predatory, and similar to a sex 
offender, it has proven it will repeat and continue to be predatory 
unless stopped by a stronger power; a company so steeped in 
monopolistic practices, it no longer deserves to exist as a whole; 
and to give them yet another heretofore unavailable market as a form 
of ``punishment'' would be the height of uninformed 
stupidity or insider payoff.
    I urge the Department of Justice, and the presiding judge,to 
make it abundantly clear that these monopolistic, predatory 
practices will not be tolerated by punishing Microsoft with harsh 
consequences.
    I would prefer to see the company split into two separate 
entities.
    Jon Pfaff
    [email protected]
    206-522-4149



MTC-00018331

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Please enforce (and interpret) the law as it is written. As a 
citizen, I expect nothing more and nothing less from the judicial 
branch of my Federal government. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Lamparter
    Registered (D)
    Computer Scientist
    407 Pine Hearst Ct
    Roseville, California
    95747



MTC-00018332

From: G. Edward Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Edward Johnson



MTC-00018333

From: jesse.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable servant of the public,
    As a computer user, systems administrator, and software 
developer, I have come into contact with all manner of Microsoft 
applications; in fact, I use one now as I write you. Drawing upon my 
experience as a whole, I can say that if any automobile manufacturer 
sold a car which performed as poorly and failed so miserably to live 
up to the expectations of the consumer as Microsoft products have, I 
am confident that the US government would have taken decisive action 
against such a company. If that company were using its investments 
in the oil companies and tire manufacturers to leverage its product, 
at the expense of competitors, this act would result in considerable 
punitive damages imposed and enforced by the federal government.
    The situation described above is a perfect analogy to the 
current stranglehold the Microsoft corporation has on the software 
market today. Microsoft has ownership of the source code to Windows, 
the most prominent operating system (OS) in the world (which is not 
a crime in and of itself), and by consequence, has the ability to 
determine who can develop content for it, and what kind of content 
may be developed. The Internet Explorer browser is the most common 
tool used to view the vast world wide web, with some counts 
reporting 70% usage by the world's PC users. This much may be 
attributed to good business management and favorable circumstances; 
the rest of the Microsoft success is due to it's usage of market 
share in one market to advance itself in another market.
    Microsoft's premiere productivity package, Office, consists of a 
word processor, professional e-mail tools, a spreadsheet 
application, and many other items. Office seems like a good product, 
and indeed it is a good combination, which is why there are so many 
other packages just like it (Corel's Office and Sun 
Microsystems'' Star Office to name just two). The reason the 
other suites have failed or hold considerably less market share is 
not that they offer less to consumers, it is because they are unable 
to utilize the features of Windows to their fullest extent and gain 
in performance, speed, and reliability the way Microsoft Office is.
    While Microsoft releases enough information to software 
developers to create applications for Windows, it does what many 
feel to be the bare minimum. This information, known collectively as 
the Windows API (Application Programmer

[[Page 26549]]

Interface), is the key to making Windows applications at all, let 
alone making them work well. When one sees a Microsoft application 
running and a third-party application running, one can see that the 
Microsoft application is able offer more (whether it be with bells 
and whistles or with performance gains) than the competitor. This is 
not thanks to a more competent development staff at Microsoft 
(indeed, Microsoft applications have consistently been shown to be 
extremely vulnerable to remote exploitations of every manner, even 
of the most simplistic kind, known as a buffer overflow which can be 
prevented with some of the most basic programming techniques), but 
because of what amounts to insider information: the team making the 
application can talk to the team who made the OS at the water 
cooler. It is even rumored that Microsoft developers utilize a 
hidden API not made publicly available but kept hidden and for the 
use of only Microsoft developers.
    If a high barrier-to-entry in the software business were not bad 
enough, Microsoft has done nothing but perpetuate its hold over 
businesses and end-users by making it difficult to switch from 
Microsoft products. The Microsoft Office package, being thoroughly 
popular among users of Windows, uses formats for saving files 
created by the user which cannot be read (or can be read from on a 
limited basis) from or written to by other applications. While it is 
not illegal to use proprietary file formats, it is highly suspect 
that Microsoft ought to be able to claim such protections on file 
formats it has made pervasive only by preventing competitors from 
making truly comparable products. In other words, if Microsoft is 
going to prevent competitors from making equally (if not greater) 
reliable and functional products, it ought to at least allow those 
competitors to use the file formats it intends to make a standard 
out of.
    Another consequence of Microsoft's market dominance is that 
consumers no longer know what a good application or a good OS is. 
How can one know what a good application is when there is only one 
application for whatever need they have; going back to the 
automobile analogy, how can one know how a good car is supposed to 
run when there is only one car manufacturer in business? Indeed, how 
can one know how a good computer should run when there is only one 
way to operate a computer, Windows. Microsoft client and server 
software have been riddled with holes since the very beginning; by 
their own admission the writers and implementers of many recent mass 
attacks, viral and otherwise, have done so with the intent to show 
to the end-user community that Windows is extremely vulnerable. Even 
Microsoft's newest OS,
    Windows XP, was found to have a massive exploit built into its 
network architecture which allowed an attacker to execute any 
command on the remote machine. It was not until the FBI became 
involved in warning users about this critical security risk that 
Microsoft released a patch for this exploit; there are still a great 
deal of security holes in many Microsoft products which are, to 
date, unpatched. Windows'' reliability and stability is highly 
questionable, and at times it appears as if certain portions of the 
OS were not thoroughly tested. Ask a Windows user at any level of 
competence what pressing the control, alt, and delete keys 
simultaneously does to the computer and they will tell you that it 
is the oft need combination which allows him/her to shut down a 
program which has failed or halted. Ask them what an illegal 
operation is and before they tell you of drug smuggling cartels and 
mafia crime syndicates they will tell you that it is a vague 
reference to the crash of an application. Ask then what Scandisk is 
and they will tell you it is the program which necessarily runs 
after Windows itself has performed an illegal operation and cannot 
be rescued by the three button combination mentioned above. The fact 
that common users, not needing to know anything about a computer's 
internal operation to send and e-mail or bring up a web page 
actually knows what these things are should say something about the 
general reliability of the OS.
    Microsoft may claim that its proprietary way of handling itself 
is necessary to its business model, and to the success of its 
products, but that is most certainly untrue. Red Hat and VA are two 
among many companies who have made a business off of a product which 
they offer for free download to their users: Linux. The Linux 
community is the exact opposite of the Microsoft conglomerate: the 
software developers have full access to the code base (known as open 
source) so that they may access whatever information they need; the 
users are presented with software developed by the community which 
is functional and may be improved upon by anyone who has the 
motivation and the knowledge; the security is tight as a consequence 
of the opened source code, since the community at large may 
scrutinize any program and report any bugs or possible 
vulnerabilities and then easily submit a patch for general 
distribution. With the Linux community the bottom line is not 
expressible in dollars, and so the community may concentrate on 
greater things that attempting to cover-up known issues with the 
software in order to keep customers.
    To be sure, Microsoft has been and still is playing a game for 
years in which it is the only competitor. The pawns are users and 
third-party developers alike, and it's weapons are denial, 
ignorance, lawsuit, acquisition, and monopoly. The only way to let 
other competitors in and to give them equal footing to compete with 
Microsoft is to allow them full and complete access to the API code 
base of past, present, and future incarnatio ns of Windows, that 
which is the common denominator for all PC based software 
development, and which has been the focal point of Microsoft's 
leverage in the software marketplace. In addition, forcing Microsoft 
to open and adhere to standards for file formats such as its Word 
format for word processing would be another equally important step 
in ensuring that Microsoft plays fair.
    To open the API code base would require diligence on the part of 
enforcement authorities, but the software development community 
would be more than willing and able to play the role of watchdog. 
The software developers of the world would finally be able to have 
an unobstructed view of the platform for which they have been 
developing, which would allow them to come up with truly new and 
innovative ways to use the OS to get the task done, instead of being 
reduced to using only Microsoft approved tools. Once again software 
development would be about creating new and productive software; 
destabilizing Microsoft's monopoly would only be a side-effect of 
the rejuvenation of an industry now plagued by limited availability 
and a giant competitor who makes all the rules.
    In no way do I advocate the total opening of a key piece of 
intellectual property owned by Microsoft, just the availability of 
enough to make sure that anyone who wants to develop software can do 
so without being hindered because he/she does not have the resources 
to write the software the way they want to. A distinction should be 
noted between the API and the entire source code to Windows: the API 
is that portion of Windows necessary to third-party developers for 
writing effective code. The extent of the code released should be 
determined by a panel to whom full access to Windows source code is 
given. This panel should consist of accomplished software developers 
in the development community: those who work for Microsoft as well 
as those who work for their competitors, those who program for 
Linux, and most notably, those who have already begun working on 
deciphering the API without Microsoft's help.
    The last group I speak of includes the programmers of a project 
which began before the DOJ lawsuit was filed: the Wine project, most 
associated with the CodeWeavers company. Wine is a project to 
emulate Windows and allow for Windows applications to be run on a 
variety of other OSes, including Linux and Sun Microsystems'' 
Solaris. These programmers have worked diligently on a way to 
destabilize Microsoft's monopoly and lower the ``switching-
cost'' (the cost of switching from one company's product to 
that of a competitors) of Windows.
    Monetary damages cannot be used against a giant who is sitting 
on top of tens of billions of dollars in assets, but to force it to 
share a little of its knowledge can be infinitely more beneficial if 
the proper information can be extracted. To the end-user the outcome 
of this case may not represent much of a change, since the average 
user has only been interested in computing since the late 90s, but 
to those of us who have been using computers long enough to have 
seen the decline of the software market and an associated decline in 
the overall quality of software in general, this case has to 
potential to bring back to computing a bit of integrity and more 
importantly, opportunity. It is with this in mind that I implore 
your honor the judge to consider the opening of the Windows API to 
be the way to cut the root of the problems which have stifled true 
creativity and innovation within the developers community. Jesse 
Dhillon.
    ``Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our 
enemies have guns; why would we let them have 
ideas?``-Josef Stalin

[[Page 26550]]



MTC-00018335

From: Lord Famine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement with microsoft is a very bad idea. 
Considering what they stand accused of, there should be no 
settlement, only a serious penalization that would render the 
company less able to engage in such monopolistic practices. Please 
be determined and relentless in your pursuit of justice. You have my 
support, and the support of many people I know.



MTC-00018336

From: Micah Alpern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    I belive the proposed antitrust settlement will not restore 
significant competition to the software industry.
    I believe that Microsoft should be required to fully disclose 
and document its Office file formats and windows APIs so that 3rd 
parties could make competing and compatible applications. This 
proposal is fully articulated by Scott Rosenberg 
([email protected]) of Salon magazine at: http://
www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/O1/16/competition/
    The article is included bellow for completeness.
    Thank you,
    Micah Alpern
    5677 Hobart Street Apt 4
    Pittsburgh PA 15217
    (412)-421-8555
    Chips ahoy
    AMD competes with Intel, and the public wins. The right 
Microsoft antitrust settlement can bring the same energy back to the 
software market.
    By Scott Rosenberg
    Jan. 16, 2002 [The personal computer industry may be in its 
worst slump in history, but you wouldn't know it by following the 
news from the processor wars. Over the past two years, Intel and AMD 
have unleashed an incredible competitive cycle in Silicon Valley. In 
case you missed it, last week these two chip companies offered 
dueling releases of new flagship processors: Intel unveiled its 
fastest Pentium 4 yet, running at 2.2 gigahertz and built with a 
new. 13 micron process that crams even more transistors into an even 
smaller space. AMD, extending the huge success and popularity of its 
Athlon line and the Athlon's most recent and powerful incarnation, 
Athlon XP, announced the XP 2000-a chip that actually runs at 
1.67 gigahertz but, third-party tests show, nearly keeps up with the 
2.2 ghz Pentium 4 in most tasks (and even surpasses it in some). 
What's going on here is simple: Good old-fashioned competition 
drives engineers to continue to work miracles. Intel, the market-
dominating behemoth, has always pushed new, improved products out 
the door faster-and dropped prices more readily-when it 
feels the breath of a credible competitor on its neck. For many 
years the competition was feeble, but that changed when AMD's Duron 
and Athlon chips began giving Intel a run for its money-and, 
for a time in 2001, actually bested Intel for the fastest personal-
computer chip title. Today, these two companies keep spurring each 
other on, and consumers win big. For most of us, that's all we need 
to know: Computers keep getting faster and cheaper. The details are 
of interest only to the legions of hardware nuts, high-performance 
system geeks and chip-overclocking fans who flock to the Web's 
hardware review sites. Right?
    Well, the gigahertz specs may indeed be only geek fodder, but 
the other details of the Intel-AMD rivalry should be of keen 
interest to a much bigger crowd. That's because the competitive heat 
driving the processor market puts the relative frigidity of another 
part of the computer business into bold relief. I refer, of course, 
to the business of designing personal-computer operating 
systems-a business that Microsoft has dominated for years and 
that, according to the confirmed verdict of our federal courts, it 
now monopolizes.
    What if Microsoft were challenged as strongly on its home turf 
as AMD is now challenging Intel? What innovations, improvements and 
price reductions would the public enjoy that it doesn't, today, 
thanks to the Microsoft monopoly? This is the big question that 
hangs over the continuing struggle to find a meaningful outcome to 
the endless Microsoft antitrust saga. And the AMD/Intel analogy is 
worth pursuing to try to find some answers. Microsoft and its 
supporters, of course, maintain that the monopoly label is 
misplaced. After all, can't you buy a Macintosh without buying 
Microsoft Windows? Can't you obtain a PC and fire it up with any of 
a dozen versions of Linux or other Unix-style operating systems?
    Sure you can-and each of those operating-system 
alternatives has its partisans. But for use by individuals on their 
personal desktops, Microsoft Windows holds the overwhelming market 
share- by nearly every estimate, over 90 percent. Is that 
simply because Windows is superior to the alternatives? There are 
certainly people who believe that; and, to be sure, with the release 
of Windows XP last year, Microsoft finally moved its flagship 
operating system off the aging and increasingly unstable code base 
it had inherited from its infancy and onto the relatively more 
reliable Windows NT/Windows 2000 core.
    But how much faster might Microsoft have achieved that 
improvement if it was racing a tough competitor? And how much more 
incentive might the company have to produce more secure, less virus-
vulnerable products today? The historical record is quite clear (and 
the antitrust trial record is just as clear): The central reason 
Windows has maintained and extended its market share over the years 
is not product superiority but a concept economists call 
``lock-in.'' Once you have all your data and all your 
software applications on one operating system or 
``platform,'' moving to a different one is 
painful-it takes time and effort and money (as economists say, 
your ``switching cost'' is high). Over the years Microsoft 
has not had to push harder and faster to improve Windows because it 
knew that its customers were unlikely to make a fast switch to a 
competitor.
    Now, that picture would be very different if you could somehow 
reduce or eliminate those switching costs. What if competing 
operating systems could seamlessly and interchangeably run the same 
programs and utilize the same data files that Windows does?
    Here's where the Intel/AMD analogy comes in handy. These 
manufacturers compete to provide chips that can run the same 
computer programs-known loosely as ``x86 
compatible'' code-and that retain compatibility with 
hardware like expansion boards and peripheral devices. If you needed 
to write different versions of each piece of software and 
manufacture different versions of each piece of accompanying 
hardware-one that would work with Intel's chips and one that 
would work with AMD's-the whole competitive market would 
disappear. The weaker player (presumably AMD) would vanish 
and-presto!-Intel would have a monopoly as tough as 
Microsoft's.
    This relatively level playing field in the x86-compatible 
processor business did not come about by sheer happenstance. The 
semiconductor industry is marked by a Byzantine pattern of patent 
cross-licensing agreements; they provide permanent employment for 
legions of lawyers, and laymen seek to understand them only at great 
peril. What's important about them, however, is not how they came 
about but that they work.
    Now that the federal courts are trying to figure out an 
effective remedy for Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly powers, the 
competition between Intel and AMD provides a valuable model. How 
would one go about enabling Microsoft's rivals to compete with it as 
effectively as AMD is competing with Intel? The key here is 
something known as the Windows API (or ``applications 
programming interface'') - the set of instructions that 
Windows programs use to ``talk to'' the operating system. 
The Windows API has long been a murky issue: Microsoft has always 
provided some information to independent developers-it has to 
if third-party Windows programs are going to work. But Microsoft can 
and does muck around with the API, changing things that break 
competitors'' products, anytime it wants to. And rumors have 
long buzzed, without ever being nailed down, that Microsoft's own 
developers take advantage of so-called hidden APIs that non-
Microsoft coders can't use. The Justice Department's proposed 
antitrust settlement with Microsoft seems to demand that Microsoft 
do more to open up its APIs to competitors. But the fine print makes 
it clear that Microsoft could pretty much continue with business as 
usual. A more effective remedy would be one that required Microsoft 
to standardize and publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the 
file formats of its Office applications (another key to Microsoft's 
monopoly ``lock-in'')-with the express goal of 
allowing competitors to build Windows software applications, and 
operating systems, that compete with Microsoft on a level field.

[[Page 26551]]

    Such a plan would require careful oversight and enforcement, 
since Microsoft could easily engage in all manner of foot-dragging. 
If Microsoft set out to be uncooperative, it could release the API 
information slowly, in deliberately confusing ways, or in a 
``Good Soldier Svejk'' fashion -assiduously following the 
letter of the court's order while flagrantly violating its spirit. 
(There's precedent here: This is precisely how Microsoft behaved 
during the trial when it told the court that, sure, it would supply 
a version of Windows with Internet Explorer removed from its guts, 
but gee, sorry, then Windows wouldn't work.)
    Now, I can already hear the howls from the Microsoft comer that 
this plan is evil and un-American because it forces Microsoft to 
give up some of its intellectual property. Well, yes. Microsoft is 
in court as a repeat offender; the current antitrust suit, in which 
a federal district court and an appeals court have both affirmed 
that Microsoft is a monopoly and that it has abused its monopoly 
powers, arose out of the failure of a previous consent-decree 
settlement of an earlier antitrust case. At some point, having 
repeatedly violated the law, Microsoft needs to pay a price, or it 
will continue with its profitably anticompetitive ways.
    There's no reason to think the Justice Department's proposed 
settlement will work any better than the consent decree of last 
decade did. And financial penalties can hardly wound a company that 
is sitting on a cash hoard of tens of billions of dollars. But 
intellectual property-that's something Bill Gates and his team 
really care about. Requiring them to divulge some of it in order to 
restore competition in the software market might actually get them 
to change the way they operate. With Microsoft's APIs and file 
formats fully standardized, documented and published, other software 
vendors could compete fairly-which, after all, is what 
antitrust laws are supposed to promote. We might then be faced with 
a welcome but long unfamiliar sight: a healthy software market, 
driven, as today's processor market is, by genuine competition.
    The Justice Department settlement is currently in a public 
comment period mandated by a law known as the Tunney Act. Through 
Jan. 28 the public is invited to send in comments on the proposal. 
(You can also e-mail them, with ``Microsoft Settlement'' 
in the subject line.) I'm sending this article in, and I encourage 
readers to file their thoughts as well. What good is open government 
if we don't use it?



MTC-00018337

From: jason zalva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am an up an coming computer programmer and what has made it 
easy is the support I have in the Linux community (GPL,OpenSource.) 
Open Source software is the key to spreading knowledge and 
education. The ability of being able to copy, distribute, and even 
change the source code without being prosecuted is a nice plus. The 
Open Source community will never be able to compete with Microsoft 
because we are not a single huge corporation. We are made up of many 
small companies, gamers, hackers, administrators, programmers, 
trouble-shooters, graphic artist, webpage designers, young and old. 
Sir we need the governments protection to continue our way of life 
that M$ would love to see destroyed(ie: The Halloween Document.) We 
cannot fight M$, but they can fight us, they are big and they have 
money and computers in Washington. Ask anyone who knows anything, if 
you want a secure server or network, use UNIX or Linux. If you want 
to pay for a bugs and compromised security, get MS windows.
    My feelings are very strong on this subject, and I don't have a 
lick of money invested in any computer software or hardware company. 
I just believe that Microsoft has become too powerfull for it's or 
anyone else's own good.
    Sincerely,
    Jason C. Zalva
    PO Box 1177
    Southwest Harbor ME 04679



MTC-00018338

From: kurt braun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    DoJ,
    I am opposed to a settlement with Microsoft, and as a citizen of 
the United States of America I would like to make my opinion known 
under the Tunney Act comment process.
    Microsoft was found by the court to be an illegally maintained 
monopoly. The government needs to enforce sufficient penalty for 
this finding, which the proposed settlement does not accomplish. The 
computer industry has been at the mercy of Microsoft's illegal 
activities for far too long. Only swift legal action can restore 
healthy competition and real innovation to this industry.
    In my opinion the DoJ should force Microsoft to:
    1. Be split into two companies, OS & Application businesses
    2. Office file formats (.doc .xls .ppt) be made open source so 
that other software companies can compete in this market by 
interoperating with the existing MS Office monopoly.
    3. Provisions be made to stop the predatory pricing used by 
Microsoft (IE, MSN, MediaPlayer etc., cannot be given away for 
``free'' in the OS)
    4. Microsoft server protocols be made open source, so that other 
operating systems can communicate.
    5. Microsoft internet protocols (.Net, IE, etc) be made open 
source so that other operating systems can interoperate properly.
    6. Microsoft must publish the prices it charges it OEM's for 
windows.
    Regards,
    Kurt Braun
    1 Cottonwood Circle
    Shrewsbury MA 01545



MTC-00018339

From: DAVID SMITH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. I am against it.
    David E.B. Smith
    Senior Counsel
    Building and Land Use Litigation Division
    City of Chicago, Department of Law
    (312) 744-8712
    [email protected]



MTC-00018340

From: greg armstrong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be punished for stiffling competition and 
helping curtail the software industry.
    What better way to boost the economy than open the flood gates 
to competition and let the boom begin again, this time with out 
microsofts handcuffs.
    Show us for a change that big business is not in bed with the 
government. Give me and my children hope, please.
    Greg Armstrong



MTC-00018341

From: Hal Anjo
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    AOL's suit against Microsoft leaves me with mixed feelings. 
However, to paraphrase Dan Gillmor, Microsoft's tactics with 
Netscape Navigator did amount to a corporate mugging. This behavior 
was all too typical of Microsoft's and Bill Gate's behavior in the 
early years. Some type of settlement is in order.



MTC-00018342

From: Aaron E Nowack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reviewing the publicly available information on the 
Proposed Final Judgement, my opinion is that it is not in the public 
interest because it fails to take into account Windows-compatible 
operating systems by both using too narrowly defined definitions 
which keep Microsoft from full disclosure of its 
``secret'' APIs and by failing to prohibit Microsoft's 
introduction of intentional incompatibilities with such Windows-
compatible operating systems into Microsoft Middleware, as Microsoft 
historically did with early versions of Windows to keep them from 
running on competing DR-DOS.
    Aaron Nowack



MTC-00018343

From: Hostmaster, NWADV
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26552]]

    I'm just writing to voice my concern with letting microsoft off 
the hook
    Dave
    Spokane, WA



MTC-00018344

From: Elizabeth Eisenmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:48pm
Subject: settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust suit 
as is presently proposed.
    In the first place, the financial outlay involved in donating 
using PCs to school system represents a flea bite in comparison with 
Microsoft's assets. Punishment for a crime is supposed to involve a 
meaningful penalty.
    In the second place, this ``donation'' will serve to 
undermine competition further in the education market. It can hardly 
escape notice that Apple Computer is the leader in this field at 
present, largely on the merits of its user friendly features and 
incentive programs for teachers and students. Microsoft would love 
nothing better than to drive a wedge into this market with its 
``free samples.'' If Microsoft truly wants to benefit 
underprivileged school systems, let them make a substantial monetary 
donation and allow the schools to make their own choices.
    In the third place, there is NO future incentive in this 
settlement for Microsoft to behave differently than in the past. 
This company has not been content to simply capture a huge market 
share and reap incredible profits. They want it all. This settlement 
is a politically motivated slap on the wrist, a giveaway, and a 
disgrace.
    Elizabeth Eisenmann
    144 School Street
    Chelmsford MA 01824



MTC-00018345

From: Gina Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:49pm
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    I want to ask that a fair marketplace be guaranteed for all 
software
    developers and manufacturers.
    Thankyou,
    Gina M Evans
    3110 Kinsrow Ave Apt322
    Eugene, OR 97401
    Phone(541) 913-6723



MTC-00018346

From: Roger Shaffer Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a taxpaying citizen and a user of computers since 1983, I am 
appalled by the possibility that the Microsoft anti-trust case may 
be settled with little more than a wrist-slap and a punishment that 
only increases Microsoft's market share.
    Over the last 20 years, I have watched Microsoft use its 
monopoly in Operating Systems to drive out any competing products. 
Gone are the days of multiple vendors with multiple products 
providing customers a choice. Now almost every area of computing is 
dominated by Microsoft products whether it be word processors, 
spreadsheets, programming interfaces, web browsers, email clients, 
and many others genres. They have done this by hiding their API's, 
altering their operating system, and using other ``dirty 
tricks'' to ensure that their competitor's software breaks and 
their's works.
    As a citizen, I am insulted by many of the possible remedies 
involved. The most dangerous being the proposal for Microsoft to 
provide software to school children. While I agree that it is 
essential to have computers in every school. Providing Microsoft-
only computers only drives out Apple and limits student's exposure 
to other forms of computing, eventually training them to be the next 
generation of Microsoft consumers.
    Microsoft has proven itself as being harmful to the computing 
industry with its many alterations of open standards such as Java 
and Kerberos to reinforce their monopoly on the desktop.
    My suggestion for settlement is two-fold. First, to increase the 
use of computers in schools, I recommend that Microsoft donate the 
hardware so that Linux can be installed on the machines. As an Open-
Source operating system, Linux is far more useful in an educational 
setting both for its inexpensive installation and maintenance costs, 
and because students can better understand how computers function. 
Secondly, Microsoft should be banned from using any proprietary 
standards for data files and must be forced to open its existing 
standards. The ability to properly open, read, edit, and save a 
document should not require software that is controlled by one 
organization. .doc, .xls, .ppt, are some prime examples. In 
addition, Microsoft must release and can no longer perform the type 
of corruptions to HTML, Java, Kerberos, and other systems that they 
have done in the past.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present my opinion.
    Roger Shaffer Jr.
    3831 N. Fremont #505
    Chicago, IL 60613
    773-281-6449



MTC-00018347

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing with regards to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I've used Microsoft's Internet Explorer 
& Netscape's browser for many years; each has its own advantages 
& disadvantages, that is why I use both for different purposes. 
As a consumer, I have the ability to decide for myself which product 
suits me best-I am not a helpless victim & I don't want 
your help. I have been & continue to be appalled by the fact 
that the ``Justice Dept'' has intruded into the sphere of 
private business transactions at the behest of its unsuccessful 
competitors. A dangerous precedent is set whenever any business 
enlists the help of the government (which is ultimately backed by 
physical force) to stifle their competitors instead of competing in 
the realm of the free market.
    It is completely irrelevant whether Microsoft bundles its 
browser with Windows-it is their product, their property. They 
are guilty of no fraud or physical force-if the consumer 
doesn't like Internet Explorer or the Windows operating system for 
that matter, there are many alternatives available on the market.
    The application of antitrust laws against successful businesses 
can only lead to continued corruption (i.e. congressman demanding 
``protection money'') and economic disaster as shown in 
many other countries.
    Unfortunately America has strayed far from its original charter. 
Hard work & success is no longer lauded, but punished at the 
altar of ``fairness''. If the ``Justice Dept'' 
has its way, it won't be long before Microsoft is further punished 
for being a successful company & therefore having the resources 
to hire the best software programmers. After all, in the twisted 
logic which passes for today's ``fairness'' doctrine, 
isn't it unfair that a smaller company can't afford to offer the 
same compensation package as Microsoft?
    Sincerely,
    Pierre Ismail
    5481 Round Meadow Road
    Hidden Hills, CA 91302



MTC-00018348

From: Craig Burgess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I am writing in opposition to acceptance of the proposed 
settlement in the matter of the US v. Microsoft antitrust case.
    In short, the anticompetitive practices in which Microsoft has 
consistently engaged throughout its corporate history are unlikely 
to be changed short of a remedy which specifically and precisely 
addresses the manifold issues relating to the company's predatory 
behavior.
    Microsoft have demonstrated unwillingness to be bound by 
restrictions which should have been imposed by the 1995 consent 
decree, the spirit of which was promptly circumvented by the 
company. That circumvention led to the company's antitrust 
conviction. Any settlement which Microsoft willingly accepts must 
now be suspect; the company's legal team has found a loophole which 
will be exploited-just as the provisions of the 1995 consent 
decree were exploited. Microsoft claims that its success depends 
upon the ``freedom to innovate'' and I must question what 
``innovation'' means to Microsoft. The company's history 
shows that it defines ``innovation'' as ``finding new 
ways of securing a monopoly stranglehold on all phases of digital 
technology.''
    I have been a user of PC computers and, necessarily, Microsoft's 
products, since the introduction of the PC computer. Whether I have 
been harmed by Microsoft practices over that period of time is 
certainly open to interpretation. That I have benefited from the 
success of Microsoft is unquestionable but those benefits probably 
could have been realised through the successes of other companies.
    We can never know. It appears to me that Microsoft is poised to 
become the sole arbiter

[[Page 26553]]

of and single point of access to ``digital technology'' 
from desktop computing to content delivered through broadband 
Internet connection.
    It is my opinion that it is not in the interest of the 
development of digital technologies to cede control of those 
technologies to a single corporate entity which I fear will happen 
if effective restraints are not imposed on Microsoft.
    I trust that others, who are both more knowledgable and more 
eloquent, will address these matters and I urge that their arguments 
be given careful consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Burgess
    PO Box 57
    Vista CA 92085-0057



MTC-00018349

From: James Woollard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the current settlement as is equals stupidity. Microsoft 
should -NOT- be allowed to keep going like they have.
    -James Woollard



MTC-00018350

From: Vijay K. Agarwala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/madam:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement that has been offered by 
the Dept. of Justice. The reasons are many but the chief amongst 
them is that it does nothing to break Microsoft's near complete 
monopoly on the desktop and barriers to innnovation which this 
monopoly creates.
    Thank you.
    Vijay



MTC-00018351

From: Andy Longton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned with the current Proposed Final Judgment 
(PFJ) and request at a minimum a specific and limited change to the 
PFJ in section III.J (1).
    After careful reading of the PFJ I am convinced that as-is it 
will do nothing to effectively remedy any of Microsoft's documented 
past or similar present and future illegal behaviors as shown in the 
Findings of Fact (FOF). At worst the PFJ sanctions and even 
encourages some of Microsoft's worst vices. Other companies may take 
the provisions of the PFJ as a green light to act similarly and 
cause additional harm to the consumer.
    As a business owner with over 12 years of professional 
experience in the software industry, and as a user of products by 
Microsoft and talented persons outside of Microsoft, I know that 
Microsoft is inherently untrustworthy. Evidence of this can be found 
in the ineffectiveness of the first Department of Justice anti-trust 
trial, the proceedings and dishonest actions during both the first 
and second anti-trust trials, and the FOF from this second anti-
trust trial.
    In addition to whole heartedly agreeing with and being a co-
signatory to the Open Letter composed by Dan Kegel and others ( 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html ), here is my additional 
specific recommendation;
    Section III.J (1)
    This section allows Microsoft to unilaterally designate any API, 
software module, or source code as integral to security. Because of 
that one loophole, the remaining PFJ becomes largely ineffective. 
Microsoft officer Bill Gates'' recently made a publicized 
announcement that security is now the single top priority at 
Microsoft. As such, all software and APIs could sweepingly be 
designated as dealing with security and therefor could not be 
disclosed unless Microsoft wishes to.
    Mr. Gates'' statement should raise direct concern with the 
DOJ that if Section III.J is not substantially changed, Microsoft 
will take immediate and public advantage of it to thwart any other 
condition of the PFJ including any software changes needed by OEMs 
to customize the Windows desktop. Additionally, any interoperability 
between Microsoft products and other non-Microsoft products will 
touch on something Microsoft decides is a security 
issue-allowing Microsoft to potentially retaliate in court 
against those other products or to simply deny or change those 
interfaces as it did against both Lotus and Digital Research (now 
Caldera).
    In addition, the whole concept of secret security devices has 
been throughly refuted. Security professionals find dubious value 
and quite a bit of harm in what is well known as ``security 
through obscurity''.
    Security through obscurity is a bad idea simply because if the 
design of a security device isn't available for investigation, 
intentional and unintentional defects in the design can't be easily 
identified and fixed. Worse yet, unethical groups or individuals 
will discover any weakness and that person or group may not have the 
publics best interests at heart. Terrorist or organized crime groups 
would have the motivation to discover these secret weaknesses and 
exploit them- further harming the public.
    To emphasize this: Microsoft is well documented for leaving in 
``backdoors'' and other security defects that are not 
changed till they cause public embarrassment and loss of sales to 
Microsoft. Some well known security faults still exist in shipping 
Microsoft products, but do not receive wide spread publicity. 
Because of that, Microsoft does not fix these defects. W
    ith section III.J of the PFJ, Microsoft would have even less of 
a reason to fix these defects or to remove any current 
``backdoors''-now or in the future.
    While there are other areas of the PFJ that can be as 
troublesome as section III.J (1), this is the section that causes me 
the most concern.



MTC-00018352

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:49pm
Subject: Dissatisfaction with proposed Microsoft settlement
    Dear Department of Justice representative,
    I am writing to voice my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    The courts have found that Microsoft is a monopoly. The proposed 
settlement does not work toward ending Microsoft's monopoly. It 
seems that the proposed settlement will merely encourage Microsoft 
to become a ``nice'' monopoly. A real remedy will end the 
Microsoft monopoly and returns the company to having a more normal 
roll in the evolution of computer technology. Truly ending the 
Microsoft monopoly will allow real competition and innovation to 
return to this important sector of our economy.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Preston S. Gabel



MTC-00018353

From: Parker, Thomas (US-McLean)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed the the Proposed Final Judgment in its current 
form. It fails to address many concerns, including many of 
Microsoft's restrictive licensing terms. This settlement needs to be 
reworked with broader input from industry experts and 
representatives of competing operating systems.
    Thomas Parker
    Thomas Parker, Deloitte & Touche LLP, Management Solutions 
& Services
    1750 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA, 22102
    Office: (703) 251-4227, [email protected] 
http://www.deloitte.com



MTC-00018354

From: Leilah Thiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses.
    It is my sincere hope that the court will continue to work to 
find a stricter settlement. I find Microsoft's business practices to 
be absolutely abhorrent, and am hoping that a settlement can be 
found that will correct some of the damage they have done.
    Sincerely,
    Leilah N. Thiel

[[Page 26554]]



MTC-00018355

From: Steven McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It does not 
go far enough in punishing Microsoft for harming consumer choice. It 
does not take the appropriate steps in preventing Microsoft from 
continuing their anticompetitive practices. As an example, Microsoft 
has a history of abusing their monopoly power to force OEMs to sell 
only Microsoft products, and the settlement allows them to continue 
this practice.
    Thank you for your time,
    Steven McDonald
    Redwood City, CA



MTC-00018356

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is too weak and does not take into 
account other operating systems that are striving to be windows 
compatible. If passed this settlement would send the message to 
Microsoft that what they have done over the last several years is 
not that bad and the will continue exercising their monopolistic 
powers.
    Richard G. Brumpton, Jr
    MCP, MCSE, MCT, CCNA, OCP, CNST, CNCT, A+
    Training Engineer
    a Technological Advantage
    Native U.S. Citizen
    658 Turtle Creek Dr.
    Creve Coeur, MO 63141
    (314) 469-2787



MTC-00018357

From: Jeremy Noetzelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, along with most of my colleagues, are vehemently opposed to 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. It will serve to further entrench 
Microsoft in a monopolistic position, while hindering open and fair 
competition.
    Jeremy Noetzelman



MTC-00018358

From: Eric J Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to complain about the antitrust settlement for 
Microsoft. With regard to releasing APIs and information I believe 
this should be reconsidered. Without access to Microsoft 
documentation it is a means of restricting third party software 
makers from writing code that functions with grace and efficiency 
within the platform. Microsoft would then have a means of writing 
programs that can be integrated into the OS that other business 
could never achieve. While security is important is it not something 
that comes by not releasing information but rather by writing better 
code that includes precautions toward security. I also believe 
financial penalties should be applied along with restructuring of 
the company. Consumers are put in a position where the OS does not 
allow them simple means of gaining the software they would like. 
While OEMs should have the option of placing software on their 
machine it should be up to the OEM to include things like Windows 
Media Player and Internet Explorer. The OEM should also have the 
ability to decide how much these products are integrated into the 
OS, giving OEMs the ability to have the operating system customized 
for their customers if they so desire. While I realize it might be 
too late to mention some of these points I simply wanted to voice my 
opinion and disagreement with the settlement.
    Thank you for giving me that opportunity.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Larson



MTC-00018359

From: ghost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Like so many others I find myself responding to this settlement 
in negative ways. I believe this settlement is a bad idea and needs 
to be reworked to take into account businesses and other sectors 
that will be impacted. I am a big believer in the Cash option. If 
they have to pay, make them pay cash. Letting them dump their 
product into a market that they don't already own is not the way to 
stop a monopoly.
    thank you for your time



MTC-00018360

From: Pravir Chandra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have been reading the proposed settlement from the usdoj web 
site. I must say that I am not in favor of it in its current form. I 
feel as though it needs to be more in favor of Microsoft's 
competitors, and less favorable to Microsoft.
    Thank You.
    Pravir Chandra.



MTC-00018361

From: Mick Magill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a Windows, Solaris, Mac, and Linux administrator, I am 
opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. 
I feel that the current proposed settlement does not fully redress 
the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their 
ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Murray-Magill
    211 Pearl St
    Santa Cruz, Ca.
    95060
    831-469-3852



MTC-00018362

From: Sten Turpin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As someone who has tried his best to avoid the shoddy 
workmanship of Microsoft products, I have to say that Microsoft has 
a true stranglehold on the software market. I do not doubt for a 
second that some of the means they have used to attain this 
stranglehold have been shady or even illegal. I have followed the 
DoJ's case against Microsoft, and even their behavior in court I 
thought merited punishment. To settle for such a meager sum, rather 
than giving Microsoft the severe punishment they deserve is to allow 
our government to further subjugate itself to corporate power and 
monies interests.
    Sten Turpin
    Internet Administrator
    Follett Higher Education Group
    www.efollett.com



MTC-00018363

From: Matt Oquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am deeply disturbed by the weaknesses of the Proposed Final 
Judgement (PFJ) in the United States v. Microsoft. This PFJ fails to 
deal with many of Microsoft's exclusionary practices, and deals 
ineffectively with others.
    For example, consider that Microsoft discriminates against ISVs 
who ship Open Source applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA 
states: ``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute 
. . . the Redistributable Components. . . 
provided that (a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only 
in conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product. . .'' 
(http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#isv, visited 
1-23-02) As a second example, Section III.A.2 allows 
Microsoft to retaliate against an OEM that

[[Page 26555]]

includes a non-Microsoft Operating System but no Microsoft Operating 
System. This fails to address the entire problem.
    I request that this PFJ be either scrapped or drastically re-
written to address these issues, as well as many others.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Oquist
    Nashua, NH
    Software Engineer
    Compaq Computer Corporation



MTC-00018364

From: Barry Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Please bring the Microsoft Antitrust case to a close. Microsoft 
has complied. Anything more will only result in problems for the 
computer technology markets. This case has already caused enough 
problems with that.
    Shantay Long
    4379 Mosley Bridge Road
    Gilbertown, AL 36908
    (251) 843-6338
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018365

From: Bryan E. Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in regards to the Tunney Act public comment period 
on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. I think that the 
proposed settlement is a joke. It does nothing to punish Microsoft 
for it's past misdeeds. It does nothing to prevent or even 
discourage them from continuing their anti competitive behavior, and 
I cannot believe the DOJ even went along with it. Suppose they were 
found guilty of robbing banks. Your ``proposal'' is that 
they promise not to rob banks anymore, and that three people watch 
them to make sure that they don't rob banks (leaving out S&L's 
and securities institutions) and if they are caught robbing banks in 
the next 5 years then by golly your gonna watch them another 2 
years. What a joke.
    I hope you reconsider and strengthen the provisions of the 
settlement proposal.
    Sincerely,
    Bryan E. Patrick
    Bryan E. Patrick 281-575-0949
    Houston, TX. 77099 http://www.bryanpatrick.com



MTC-00018366

From: Todd Nicoletti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe the proposed settlement serves justice. Please 
consider the vast damage our nation has suffered from Microsoft 
corporations'' actions and what the world has lost as a result.
    Todd Nicoletti



MTC-00018367

From: Evan Anderson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the current proposed settlement with the 
Microsoft Corporation is appropriate. I have read the proposed 
settlement, and find that the current settlement is not a change for 
the favor of competition, and does not adequately punish Microsoft 
for performing illegal acts.
    Thank you,
    Evan Anderson
    Software Engineer
    Oxford Systems Integration, Inc.
    619 Lincoln Avenue
    Troy, OH 45373



MTC-00018368

From: Darren V. Croft
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement.
    I am the IS Manager at a small company, and an independent 
software developer. I believe Microsoft has hurt consumers and 
slowed progress in the computer industry by anticompetitive 
behavior, and I don't believe the proposed settlement is sufficient 
to prevent further harm.
    I don't believe it is strict enough (too many loopholes).
    I don't believe it can be adequately enforced.
    I believe Microsoft has shown a disregard for the law and will 
not change unless forced to and I don't see that this settlement 
will have that effect.
    I am pleased that 9 states are not going along with this 
settlement.
    An article that some points that hit home to me can be found at:
    http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s% 
253D1887%2526a%253D17989,00.asp



MTC-00018369

From: Stephen Wragg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Please consider this commentary under the Tunney Act before 
accepting any settlement.
    I am a programmer and a concerned citizen. It seems very clear 
that the Department of Justice failed to probably prosecute 
Microsoft for its shameless illegal practices of coercion and 
uncompleteness. They simply use their size and influence on the 
market to disrupt any clear standards for sharing information and 
conducting commerce on the web. When there are no standards in 
place, the only alternative is to purchase all Microsoft products. 
They don't even need to write stable or secure software because they 
can assure it's necessity by causing confusion and fear in the 
marketplace. Please don't let us down. Throw out this settlement and 
go back. This is too important to loose.
    There should be no settlement considered that does not break 
Microsoft into at least two separate companies.
    Yours Truly,
    Stephen Wragg



MTC-00018370

From: Nathan Bannow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement is not enough, and needs 
more review. I take particularly strong offense to Section 
III(J)(2). This would effectively allow Microsoft to 
``kill'' many invaluable not for profit Open Source 
computer software initiatives.
    I also feel that Section III(D) needs to be expanded to include 
non-commercial entities.
    Thank You,
    Nathan Bannow
    Library Development
    20-20 Giza, Inc.
    [email protected] (e-mail)
    (414) 332-0574, ext. 14 (voice)
    (414) 332-0285 (fax)
    www.giza.com



MTC-00018371

From: James Poplar
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is no competition in an environment given by our current 
state of business with Microsoft. As a security researcher, I feel 
that were some company's take responsibility for issues with their 
software, Microsoft is such a clunky beast it feels it should not 
care. I would imagine that if business goes on like usual, this will 
not change.
    The practices of the Microsoft company upset me to no end, and 
the list of abuses I cannot even begin to describe due to the 
horrific amount that I would have to type before you.
. . . Fixing the online poll to favor .net technology on 
ZDNet was a recent on that sickened me.
. . . Slandering the open source community was another.
. . . The hostile attitude toward open disclosure for 
security violations in software is another one.
. . . Forcing the market to comply with the pitiful and 
poorly coded protocols is another. (UPnP, PPPTP)
    I would like to see Microsoft answer for what they have done to 
the market and the consumers. I feel that something should be done, 
to make the computing community advance, like force peer review of 
Microsoft's code, force Microsoft to accept liability for security 
as well as faulty software, and to educate their programmers in 
better programming techniques. If I were to code the way they have 
in the past, I would most likely be caught in a lawsuit myself. It 
angers me that Microsoft has no liability when it is evident they 
indeed KNOW about problems and treat them like PR problems and 
nothing more.
    The internet appliance from Compaq is a grand example of their 
lack of commitment to their consumers, and the rash of .net passport 
problems is another. I have heard time and time again MSN Internet 
Access horror stories, and I am sick and tired of people feeling 
helpless in the face of Microsoft simply because of the size of the 
company and the ease they seem to ``always get away with 
murder''.
    This is my feeling on the subject, and I do NOT want Microsoft 
giving software to schools, as that has the opposite effect that

[[Page 26556]]

people seem to think it has. GIVING software to schools increases 
the consumer base, and again makes Microsoft net more customers. 
After all, if you have been using an OS or software suite through 
school, what will you use when you finally leave said institution?
    Thank you.
    James Poplar
    1330 East 600 South
    SLC, UT 84102
    1-801-581-0707



MTC-00018372

From: Tietjen, Richard
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial. Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices are counter to the law and spirit of our free-
enterprise system. These practices inhibit competition, reduce 
innovation, and thereby decrease employment and productivity in our 
nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Richard Tietjen
    110 Boston Street
    Guilford, CT 06437



MTC-00018373

From: Steve Fry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please make Microsoft play fair. The settlement currently on the 
table does not appear to be so. Make them play by the 
rules-the rest of us have to.
    Steve Fry
    [email protected]
    257 Pearl, #207
    Denver, CO 80203
    IR3W Web Services
    Steve 
[email protected]
    Web Site Design, Development, and More!
    http://www.ir3w.com



MTC-00018374

From: dusty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings.
    The proposed settlement, although a step in the right direction, 
does not meet the needs of the average computer user.
    This settlement would allow Microsoft to continue to abuse its 
monopoly power; essentially allowing it to retaliate against 
companies that don't provide a copy of Windows with the hardware (a 
major complaint all through the case). Also, the numerous Microsoft 
representatives on the oversight committee makes it much more likely 
that violations of the settlement would go unnoticed or unpunished. 
This is unacceptable. Please review the terms of the settlement and 
reach a deal where
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices can be stopped.
    Regards,
    Dusty O'Connell
    ``If videogames like Pac-Man affected us when we were kids, 
we'd all be sitting in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and 
listening to repetetive electronic music.''
-someone at Nintendo, in response to allegations that video 
games cause violence in kids



MTC-00018375

From: steve wolff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow the settlement to go through. Its not even 
just a slap on Microsoft's wrist.
    They should pay cash out to the different parties not simply 
(cheaply) offer MS software and old computers.
    I agree that the actual value of the proposed settlement is in 
the $50 million range not in the $1 Billion range.
    thank you
    Steven B. Wolff
    Sr. VP and CTO
    415 883 1500 1711 fax



MTC-00018377

From: LaMaia Cramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has 
been unfairly tilting the market to their own advantage for 
countless years. We need to make sure that we level the field.
    Additionally, if taxpayer's funds are helping to support code 
development and research, then the source code should be made freely 
available to all citizens (and possibly others as well).
    Freely available source code will allow the community of 
American programmers to truly progress, instead of having multiple 
groups churning away redundant code. It would also allow for a peer-
review process which is currently sorely lacking.
    -LaMaia Cramer
    [email protected]



MTC-00018378

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I just wanted to take a moment and urge you NOT to penalize 
Microsoft for the ``crime'' of successfully competing 
against rival companies. Our antitrust laws are hopelessly muddled 
and in my opinion should be done away with completely. While I 
realize that isn't in your power, you will certainly be sending a 
message by how you choose to deal with Microsoft. Send the right 
message: that America believes in free enterprise and letting the 
market- not the bureaucrats-dictate how successful a 
company can become.
    Sincerely,
    Stewart Margolis
    842 S. Sycamore Ave.
    Los Angeles, CA 90036
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018379

From: Allan Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to Microsoft antitrust settlement proposal. After 
reading the proposal, it is readily apparent that the provisions do 
not fully address the well-documented past practices of Microsoft; 
there are no means of redress for those aggrieved.
    The proposal simply prohibits Microsoft from executing its 
predatory practices; this is the antithesis to justice! Please 
address compensation/repatriation for those who have been wronged by 
the illegal and preadatory practices of Microsoft.
    I fear that the EU will be much more harsh in its assessment of 
MS practices, and the current DOJ settlement will pale in 
comparison. What will it say about the effectiveness and 
impartiality of the USDoJ?
    Thank you kindly for your time,
    Allan Jones
    [email protected]



MTC-00018380

From: Jerry Prather
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I do not agree with the terms of this settlement. Microsoft has 
properly been found guilty of being an illegal monopoly and they are 
to attone by giving away old computers and software that will 
further lock our children into their monopoly? That hardly sounds 
like a punishment to me.
    I've heard it argued that no damage has been done to consumers. 
I represent at least one case where damage -has- been 
done by Microsoft's actions. I was a PC user back in the old DOS 
days and owned many DOS software packages. When Windows 3.1 came 
out, I started upgrading my old applications, because I accepted 
Microsoft's marketing that this was the wave of the future and 
things would be better. The Windows applications were a disaster 
compared to the old DOS applications. I'm talking about less 
stability, slower operation, and altogether a poorer product. I 
tossed the new stuff and went on using the tried-and-true DOS 
applications. Hence, I was damaged to the amount of that software by 
Microsoft.

[[Page 26557]]

    I next learned about OS/2 (Version 2.1) put out by IBM. As 
advertised, it was a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than 
Windows. Native OS/2 applications were superb in performance. Even 
in these early days, operating system stability was much better in 
OS/2 than in Windows. And OS/2 could truly multi-task-a 
feature I use constantly-and was multi-threaded to boot. 
(Currently my system reports 28 processes and 136 threads running at 
the same time.)
    But, except for some hard-headed people like me that insist that 
their operating system deliver speedy, reliable, non-crashing 
service, OS/2 is hard to find. OS/2 was driven out of the market by 
Microsoft's pre-load agreements with the major computer 
manufacturers. Even the small computer shops have been lured into 
Microsoft's camp by being assured that their sales people and 
technicians only have to learn one operating system.
    How am I hurt by this? First, because of Microsoft's monopoly, 
it's become uneconomic to develop native software for OS/2. I much 
prefer native OS/2 software, but I find that I have to program what 
I want that isn't already available-and once I get it working 
I have no financial incentive to polish the program for commercial 
or shareware sale. Secondly, the computer hardware industry has 
taken to building cheap stuff (Windows printers, Windows modems, 
etc.) which saps the power of the CPU-and, for the reasons 
stated above, an OS/2 user can't get drivers for the hardware 
anyway.
    Yes, I've personally been hurt by the Microsoft monopoly and the 
government should take strong, punitive action against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jerauld S. Prather -
    Jerry Prather
    Virginia Beach, VA
    [email protected] [email protected] q
    ``Many religions are worth dying for; none are worth 
killing for.''
-Me, circa 1998
    CC:dep(a)drippingwithirony.com,Prather Angela,JackyJH...



MTC-00018381

From: John Endicott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am vigorously opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement, 
mainly because it allows Microsoft to continue the same practices of 
which they were found guilty. The current proposal does not provide 
adequate reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies 
have ceased to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's 
business practices.
    Even after being found guilty of illegally maintaining and 
extending its monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not changed. 
Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe criminal 
penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I can see 
will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a state of 
competition.
    Please consider this a vote against the current settlement, as 
well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to 
Microsoft's competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    John Endicott
    453 Detroit St.
    Denver, CO 80206



MTC-00018382

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,president@ 
whitehouse.gov@inetgw,mac....
Date: 1/23/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case is a perfect example of the worst kind of 
action expected out of Washington.
    You take a brilliant young man who has a vision no one else has 
and you allow him to unleash his talents upon the world. He changes 
the world in a way no one that was possible. He gives the people of 
the world a gift that they still cannot properly appreciate. His 
creations give rise to an ``information superhighway'' 
that allow people all over the world to do miraculous things. It 
reminds me of a story of a great architect who has defend his 
creations against those who use his ideas and then denounce him for 
those ideas. He utters a line near the end of the story: 
``Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make 
fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers 
to light.''
    What response can we expect from this? If we eliminate the 
incentive to be successful in this country by punishing the most 
successful members of our society, then the weakest will not be 
pulled by the strongest; the able will descend into mediocrity by 
the weight of the incompetent. This is the grand image we want to 
project of America? Of course it is not. We've spent every day since 
September 11 trying to show the world that we will not go gently 
into the night. We say that we will fight until the battle is won. 
And yet, our hypocritical government continues to condemn its 
greatest producers on one hand and then hold them up for the world 
to see on the other. This kind of dichotomy can only exist in the 
chimera that is our government. This many headed monster that seeks 
to engulf us with its growth every passing year cannot be allowed to 
continue.
    Microsoft is a powerful company that does everything it can to 
perpetuate its dominance. What else is it supposed to do. Do we 
really want them to simply give handouts to the rest of the computer 
industry so that they can catch up? There is nothing to stop a small 
upstart company from coming along and doing what Microsoft itself 
did twenty years ago. Michael Dell had a vision to dance with the 
big boys, and he, too, started with nothing but an idea that 
everyone around him called ridiculous. Does Larry Ellison really 
need the government's help to defeat Microsoft? If this is true, 
than who should the government's attack really be focused on?
    Chris Owen



MTC-00018383

From: Dan Ritter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is not a useful and appropriate remedy 
for the problems caused by Microsoft's abuse of monopoly powers.
    Specifically, the setlement does nothing to address the needs of 
software developers who have been forced to work against Microsoft's 
privileges.
    Any effective remedy must remove the barriers which Microsoft 
erected through unlawful actions.
    At a minimum, Microsoft must:
-be required to compete on a fair and level playing field with 
all other software developers. This requires Microsoft to accurately 
and completely divulge all Application Programming Interfaces 
(APIs), Application Binary Interfaces (ABIs) and all document 
interchange formats and protocols, and to make these specifications 
public at the same time that any Microsoft product which uses them 
is released.
-be required to pay a restitutional fine proportionate to the 
excess profits Microsoft made as a result of their illegal actions.
-be required to pay a punitive fine proportionate to 
Microsoft's current net worth.
-be ineligible to sell or give any Microsoft software product 
to any Government entity for a period of time equal to the period of 
time in which Microsoft committed illegal actions.
-be held on probation for 10 years, during which time any 
further illegal activity by Microsoft would result in the immediate 
suspension of Microsoft's corporate charter.
    Dan Ritter
    Waltham, Massachusetts



MTC-00018384

From: James Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to make a few comments on the proposed anti-trust 
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation. I hope you are receiving 
many other comments on this, so I will keep my comments as brief as 
possible. I work in the computer industry, and have experience with 
a wide variety of desktop computer platforms, operating systems and 
applications. I work for a small software/hardware development 
company, and have seen the results of Microsoft's monopoly in many 
degrees.
    While I use Microsoft products where appropriate, I have seen 
many occasions where I have been denied a choice, or a choice was 
removed from me, due to the so-called ``interoperability'' 
that Microsoft's products use. This interoperability is in actuality 
a ``crowbar'' attempt to force users who use one Microsoft 
application to adopt other Microsoft applications as well. This has 
been shown in the findings of fact in this anti-trust trial. While I 
applaud the findings of fact, I am worried about the proposed 
settlement. There are many reasons for this, which can be found in 
several well-written articles on the Web. But the most worrying

[[Page 26558]]

element for me is that much of the focus is on disclosing Microsoft 
APIs. There are three problems with this approach:
    1. The proposed settlement is too narrowly focused. It leaves 
many essential APIs undisclosed, and doesn't allow for necessary 
(and timely) documentation of those that are disclosed. Furthermore, 
some of these APIs (e.g. Microsoft Java) will soon be discarded by 
Microsoft in favor of newer technologies (e.g. .NET) which aren't 
covered by the settlement. It is likely Microsoft will simply 
abandon many of the covered APIs to avoid these restrictions.
    2. There are many unreasonable restrictions placed on the use of 
the APIs. Because the Windows APIs remained licensed (and the 
patents covering them aren't even disclosed), developers run the 
risk of unintentionally violating the terms of their license when 
developing software for other operating systems. This divides the 
world into Windows developers and non-Windows developers, which is 
contrary to the intentions of the settlement.
    3. Essential file formats remain undocumented, forcing users 
wishing to share documents to use the same application. This is 
perhaps the biggest crowbar in Microsoft's arsenal from a user's 
standpoint. I myself have found it necessary to purchase Microsoft 
products I did not wish to use, merely because I needed the ability 
to open files created by others.
    Thank you for your time. I hope my opinion is of some use.
    James Green
    James Green Sophisticated Circuits, Inc. 
[email protected]
    http://www.sophisticated.com



MTC-00018385

From: Kerry Kruempelstaedter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft is a bad idea and hope 
that better efforts are made to find a solution that will be good 
for consumers.
    -kk-



MTC-00018386

From: Nick Silberstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I'm opposed to the settlement with Microsoft as it currently 
stands. I believe it let's Microsoft ``off the hook'' and 
fails to either 1) Remedy past problems brought on by Microsoft's 
monopolistic abuse, and 2) Protect either a)consumers, or b)the rest 
of the computer industry, from future abuse by Microsoft.
    Microsoft must be made to see the error of their ways. The 
consistent arrogance they have displayed at every opportunity when 
their monopolistic and intimidating business practices are called 
into question makes it clear that Microsoft has NOT learned their 
lesson. Please do your part to ensure the continued health and 
growth of the technology and software industries by reining in a 
company bent on total domination with a proven track record of 
squashing promising companies like Netscape.
    Sincerely,
    Nick Silberstein



MTC-00018387

From: ralphtheraccoon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00018388

From: Kelly G. Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the proposed settlement has far too many loopholes and 
will be an ineffective remedy for Microsoft Corporation's misdeeds. 
A better settlement would require Microsoft to fully document and 
publish in a timely manner their system interface calls and file 
formats and allow other companies, organizations, and individuals to 
freely use these documents to write software which is compatible 
with Microsoft's products.
    Kelly Price



MTC-00018389

From: keith frost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If they are going to be allowed to act as a utillity company 
then they need to be regulated like one. ALL the API need to be 
opened up, and they're OS needs to be tested for conformity (against 
what they publish) the same way the water company gets tested for 
quality.
    better yet just have the federal governmet exercise Eminent 
Domain and take control of MS. it'd be great for reducing taxes.
    phrostie
    Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS and danced the skies on 
Linux silvered wings.
    http://pfrostie.freeservers.com/cad-tastrafy/
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux/



MTC-00018390

From: Michael Percy
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement does not adequately 
address the concerns layed out by Judge Jackson or the Appeals court 
for eliminating Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior in the 
marketplace. The largest issue that stands out in my mind is that 
the settlement failed to address the growing issue of Open Source 
Software (OSS) competition for Microsoft. Microsoft's licensing 
terms include clauses for prohibiting the installation of OSS by 
ISVs and OEMs, as well as the use of Microsoft's Software 
Development Kits (SDKs) to develop software with an Open Source 
License. Moreover, Microsoft punishes those who install a competing 
Operating System (OS), such as Linux, in addition to or instead of a 
Microsoft OS.
    Microsoft considers its OEM licenses (which enforce the above) a 
``trade secret'' and is not required to disclose the 
details of those licenses. The proposed settlement does nothing to 
address any the above issues, especially as they apply to small or 
local OEMs. If this behavior continues, the court has not done its 
job in assuring an end to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
    Regards,
    Michael Percy
    San Ramon, CA
    Software Engineer, Portera Systems
    Campbell, CA
    (I do not speak on behalf of my employer)



MTC-00018391

From: Mike Perik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I would like to express my disapproval of the Proposed Final 
Judgment for the Microsoft settlement. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive License Terms currently used by Microsoft -Microsoft 
currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps 
from running on Windows. -Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Windows apps from running on competing 
operating systems.
    -Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    I also disagree with the proposal of Microsoft donating 
Microsoft products to schools this only helps them lock out 
competitors. They should be required to donate money that can be 
used for the purchase of any vendors hardware and/or software for a 
solution that best fits the needs of the school.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Perik, Batavia, Illinois; Software Engineer



MTC-00018392

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern,
    I am not in favor of the current Microsoft settlement. Microsoft 
destroyed many of the computer companies I purchased software from 
such as RoseSoft.
    The current settlement does nothing to remedy the past illegal 
behavior of Microsoft.
    John Julian
    1101 Newberry Rd
    Milford, MI 48380

[[Page 26559]]



MTC-00018393

From: Jason Swartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'm writing about the proposed settlement for the Microsoft 
antitrust case, in accordance with the Tunney act. The proposed 
settlement is far too lenient on Microsoft, and should be re-
evaluated. I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's 
analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), 
namely: Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    Thanks,
    -Jason Swartz



MTC-00018394

From: DJ Hagberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement as proposed by the US Department of 
Justice and Microsoft at best is ineffectual and at worst grants 
Microsoft power to pursue its monopoly in even more aggressive ways. 
It must NOT be accepted in its current state-severe behavioral 
or structural remedies are warranted.
    With the current settlement, Microsoft is free to pursue lock-in 
contracts with computer vendors, withhold documentation on protocols 
critical for interoperability with free software (under the guise of 
a vague ``security-critical'' term), expand their Internet 
Service Provider business, MSN, to the exclusion of non-Microsoft 
operating systems, and expand their customer lock-in through the 
Passport system. This remedy also gives NO rights to one of the most 
viable alternatives to Microsoft's lock in-the Open Source and 
Free Software organizations responsible for the creation of Linux, 
Apache, and SAMBA. As a matter of fact, these organizations are 
*explicitly* excluded in section III(J)(2). In fact this settlement 
gives Microsoft more power to exclude free and open software from 
their market. The proposed settlement is no rememdy. This must be 
changed. My recommendations would include:
    - Ceding control of /all/ Microsoft Office file formats to an 
open, *royalty-free* standards body such as W3C.
    - Ceding control of /all/ Microsoft networking protocols and 
related network data formats to an open, *royalty-free* standards 
body such as W3C.
    - The above file formats and networking standards shall be 
available on-line on Microsoft's website, accessible by any 
standards-compliant web browser, unencumbered by registration, 
royalty, or other protection clauses.
    - Regular, independent standards-compliance reviews of Microsoft 
products against the publically-available standards. The above 
regulations leave the software field open to competition, on 
platforms other than Windows, and provide a competitive marketplace 
and a standards-compliant base upon which both free and commercial 
can compete for customer's mindshare and wallets.
    Thank you for your time,
    D. J. Hagberg, Jr.
    Software Engineer
    Millibits Consulting
    3265 McClure Drive
    Erie CO 80516
    Ph. 303 926-6918
    [email protected]



MTC-00018395

From: Matt Weaver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft%20Settlement
    This settlement is no good.
    -Matt



MTC-00018396

From: Greg Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    This letter is my set of comments about the proposed settlement 
as part of the Tunney Act comment process.

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM

    The fundamental problem with the settlement is that Microsoft is 
completely out of control abusing its market monopoly, engaging in 
repeated and clear practices of product tying by using its monopoly 
position in operating systems to destroy other markets and eliminate 
competition, and the settlement does nothing to address this.
    At a fundamental level Microsoft has grossly overstepped the 
bounds appropriate for an operating system product, and has been for 
several years the single biggest anti-competitive force in the 
computer industry.

WHAT IS AN OPERATING SYSTEM?

    The crux of Microsoft's abuses involves overstepping the 
definition of an operating system; I suggest this definition: 
``An operating system abstracts computer hardware and provides 
a consistent interface for application programs to utilize.'' 
An operation system enables applications. A more generous definition 
of the operating system could perhaps be expanded to include 
``the minimal set of utilities required to maintain the 
computer hardware.''

THE BLOODY TRAIL

    A casual reading of the trade press for the past 10 years 
reveals numerous companies devastated by Microsoft's decision to 
include successful ``applications'' in its 
``operation system'', effectively destroying the markets 
in the process and eliminating future competition.

Examples of destroyed markets:

    1) File managers
    2) Disk defragmentation
    3) Disk compression
    4) WWW browser
    5) E-Mail clients
    6) Media players (currently being destroyed)
    The first three examples could perhaps be covered by the minimal 
set of utilities to maintain the computer hardware, although there 
are considerations of a competitive market for computer hardware 
maintenance utilities.
    The last three examples are most could not appropriate for an 
operating system.

A REPEATED PATTERN

    Microsoft has consistently followed the pattern of defining 
API's (which is a valid function of an operating system and is pro-
competitive) and then bundling ``free'' applications which 
destroy markets (not a valid function of an operating system and 
intentionally anti-competitive). Furthermore, having both control 
over the operating system and early access to this information for 
application development gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over 
competitive applications that simpley can't be overcome. All talk of 
a ``Chinese wall'' separating the operating system 
development and application development is joke that not even 
Microsoft bothers to tell any more. This situation is grossly anti-
competitive.

FALSE BENEFITS

    Microsoft justifies bundling in terms of consumer benefit; 
consumers do benefit to some degree in the short term by getting 
applications for free.
    However, in the long run consumers are hurt because:
    1) Markets are destroyed
    2) Competition is stifled
    3) Choice is removed
    Furthermore, every ``free'' application given to the 
consumer is fundamentally illegal because it represents monopoly 
product tying; applications should not be in the operating system 
(see definition above).

WWW BROWSER EXAMPLE

    Microsoft claims Internet Explorer is a fundamental part of the 
operating system that can't be removed and still have a functional 
product. The company may have constucted its product in such a way 
that this is true; however, it still represents illegal tying of 
application and operation system.
    Microsoft is free to define API's to include in its operating 
system, which it did liberally in its drive to embrace the Internet. 
API's fall into the consistent interface for application programs, 
and are pro-competitive. However, as soon as Microsoft bundles an 
application to take advantage of the API's the line is crossed and 
the behavior becomes anti-competitive. Applications and operating 
systems are separate products, and should not be mixed in an anti-
competitive way.

VOLUME LICENSES

    One abuse of monopoly power that was not even mentioned during 
the trial was clauses in volume licenses that explicitly prevent 
dual-installation of another operating system co-existent with the 
Microsoft operating system. This is a gross and particularly glaring 
abuse of monopoly power designed to stifle competition.

FAILURES OF THE SETTLEMENT

    The settlement fails in numerous ways:
    1) Microsoft has grossly overstepped the bounds of an operating 
system and repeatedly and illegally tied applications to

[[Page 26560]]

its operatin system; the settlement does nothing to address this 
fundamental transgression.
    2) Microsoft's behavior has been grossly anti-competitive, 
severely abusing its monopoly market power; the settlement does 
nothing to address this.
    3) Microsoft has illegally destroyed numerous markets and 
illegally stifled competition in methodical and repeated ways; 
numerous companies have suffered or been destroyed, unknown others 
have been been intimidated out of markets or prevents from forming 
in the first place, and the entire competitive landscape of the 
computer industry has been negatively affected by Microsoft's 
actions; yet the settlement contains no punitive actions against 
Microsoft.
    4) The settlement does not go far enough in curbing Microsoft's 
monopoly power in dictating terms in business dealings such as 
volume licensing deals.

PERSONAL OPINION OF A YOUNG AMERICAN

    My personal opinion is that the settlement is a bad joke. It 
sends the message that if you are a successful company somehow 
perceived as beneficial to the country then you can run roughshod 
over the law consistenly and methodically and still escape 
punishment. The settlement represents behavior of the government 
that disillusions young Americans. I hope the Department of Justice 
will reconsider this ill-advised settlement and take actions to 
restore fair competition to the computer industry.
    Greg Martin
    [email protected]



MTC-00018397

From: Rik Gran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200 Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
From: Richard Gran
6310 60th Ave NE #101
Seattle, WA 98115
[email protected]
Wednesday, January 23, 2002
    I am writing with comments on the proposed Microsoft settlement. 
I am concerned that the settlement reached by Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice is neither a sufficient punishment for the 
illegal practices uncovered in trial, nor adequate compensation to 
the victims of those practices such as myself, nor does it provide a 
good remedy that will prevent further illegal actions by Microsoft. 
I am sure that the public comments will generate many different 
views on the proposed settlement and possible remedies. I will 
confine my comments here mostly to things that have impacted me 
personally. Looking at how I use computers, I can see the explicit 
negative effects that Microsoft's illegally maintained monopoly has 
had on my work.
    I have two points I would like to make. First, the monoply that 
Mircosoft has built and maintained through illegal actions has had 
direct, and negative effects on my work. Since I am unable to 
personally recover damages from those ill effects, I expect that the 
courts will act very strongly to punish Microsoft, and to 
aggresively find ways to prevent further damage. The second point is 
that any agreement that allows Microsoft to continue with the 
practices it has used over the last ten years will likely seriously 
affect and delay innovation in software development in the future, 
as it has in the past decade.

Section one: The effects on my work

    I work as a physics researcher doing experimental high energy 
physics. Currently, I am a graduate student at the University of 
Minnesota. My research is supported by a Department of Energy grant, 
and my studies are partly supported by the State of Minnesota. In 
the course of my work I do a lot of computer programming for my data 
analysis, and also use the computer to write my thesis.
    Practically none of the work I do involves any product designed 
by Microsoft. Almost all the programming I do and applications I use 
are done on one of several flavors of UNIX (Compaq's Digital Unix 
and GNU/Linux). By itself, this is not very interesting. A 
different, non Microsoft Windows, system happens to be appropriate 
for my work. But Microsoft's illegally maintained monopoly on the 
Windows and Office market has prevented some applications that 
should have been available to me on UNIX systems from being 
available. By this, I don't mean ``should'' in principle, 
but several companies have made efforts to produce software that 
runs on multiple platforms, and have failed.
    One primary example is Microsoft Office, the dominant office 
suite. For writing a Ph.D. thesis or doing serious numerical 
calculations, MS Office is an inappropriate choice. But for simple 
letters, and for small spreadsheet calculations, these are excellent 
tools. We are all aware of this, practically everyone who uses a 
computer has used a word processor or spreadsheet. Microsoft used to 
have several competitors in this category, and over the last 10 
years all but two seemed to have died away. Of those, one (Corel's 
WordPerfect) made an effort to provide their product for Unix 
machines. Only recently have a couple new products appeared which 
might soon fill this gap. And these are products that have been 
standard on Windows and Macintosh machines for over ten years. There 
is no technical reason why it has taken so long, it is simply 
because the companies'' inability to overcome Microsoft's 
monopoly has prevented them from extending their product line to 
where I work. The cost to me is lost time, the inability to use 
documents from people who use Microsoft Office, and the need to 
purchase a different, separate computer to run these programs.
    To further this example, my wife also works in scientific 
research. She has worked on Unix machines and with other non-
Microsoft products before, though not as extensively or as totally 
as I do. When a federal grant gave her enough money to upgrade the 
computer she uses for daily work, she chose to get one with Windows 
installed, even though she will still require a different computer 
for other tasks. The reason is because she felt she needed immediate 
access to Word and Excel, even though these items are only half of 
her work. Again, these are products that the computer industry would 
almost certainly have provided if it hadn't been for Microsoft's 
illegal practices.
    My point: if Microsoft had not illegally maintained its 
monopoly, these common, ubiquitous computing products would have 
been available for this other, non-Microsoft operating system before 
now, and one or more companies would be still thriving businesses 
and good employers because they offered it for Unix or other 
operating systems. My work would be faster, less expensive, and more 
effective, and it would have cost less to the Department of Energy 
and the State of Minnesota, as well as to me personally: thousands 
of dollars and thousands of hours for just one worker.
    Example number two. For many years Microsoft has illegally 
prevented computer hardware makers from installing an alternate 
operating system on the hardware if they had an OEM agreement with 
Microsoft. The main publicly known example of this is BeOS, though I 
don't think the DoJ formally investigated this prior to its anti-
trust suit, and judging by the settlement, they are probably not 
investigating this now. There is no technical reason why two 
operating systems could not be present on one machine; indeed, in 
the past four years several alternate OS's such as Sun's SPARC, GNU/
Linux, and the late BeOS appeared and run on the same hardware that 
Windows uses. If computer manufacturers had been allowed to install 
one or more of these along with Windows, a wider group of people 
might have tried and used them, more useful programs might be 
available for them. If one or more of them offered important 
benefits that Windows didn't offer, they likely would have attracted 
a wide following, at least among users who would benefit. In my 
case, the GNU/Linux system is very similar to the Unix systems that 
I had been using all along for my research.
    My point: if Microsoft had not illegally maintained its 
monopoly, these alternative ways of using a computer might have been 
more easily available to a wider group of users. Those alternatives 
that were actually better than Windows, at least for some uses, 
would be widely available today. The jungle of computer operating 
systems and applications and uses would be much more diverse, much 
richer than it is today. Furthermore, software makers would develop 
programs, applications, and tools in such a way that they run on 
more than one type of computer or operating system.
    Section two: The effect on the software industry as a whole I 
would like to reiterate and extent this last point, with one 
important conclusion. In the past couple years, several alternatives 
to Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office and other web browsing and 
multimedia applications have appeared and are challenging Microsoft 
in its primary market. Some of these products appeared

[[Page 26561]]

before Microsoft made one of their own, while some came later. Some 
offer the same functionality while some offer more. In a marketplace 
free from an abusive monopoly, these products would compete on their 
own merits and on their ability to interact well with other 
programs. In the case of an abusive monopolist, they are denied 
equal access to the consumers and to information to make them 
interact with other programs, in particular they can not enter the 
market of the monopolist. It is very telling that the most 
successful path to competing with Microsoft has come from the 
``Open Source'' community. Products such as GNU/Linux, 
Sun's StarOffice, the Apache webserver, Samba, and several 
initiatives by IBM are all developed in a not for profit way. These 
individuals and companies are in some cases are hoping for an 
indirect profit by selling hardware, or service, or something else, 
but these basic foundations are available for free or for very low 
cost. This strategy is working, so far, because Microsoft uses 
illegal monetary incentives to suppress competition, and these 
products are substantially immune to those efforts.
    Had Microsoft simply been an accidental or legal monopoly, it 
would have a wider variety of successful competitors. Apparently, 
the most successful way of competing with an abusive monopolist is 
to offer products that are immune to the illegal financial-based 
actions of that monopolist. In effect, the competing products must 
be nearly free to customers. The fact that we see exactly this kind 
of competition, and the fact that we are seeing it from companies 
that are otherwise very profit-oriented (such as Sun and IBM) 
strongly suggests that Microsoft's illegal monopoly has had a 
substantial and ongoing effect on the software business, beyond what 
an ordinary monopoly would have.
    The field of computers, software, and information technology is 
rapidly changing. There are new ideas appearing all the time, and 
older ideas and programs evolve and improve. If allowed to flourish, 
many of these new ideas will be commonplace in just a few years. As 
indicated here, and in the case presented by the DoJ in the anti-
trust trial, and through many other examples, Microsoft has acted 
illegally to prevent individuals and companies from competing 
against its own products, and today's computing existence is poorer 
because of it.
    If the proposed settlement is not made stronger, or if a much 
stronger remedy is not put into place, then only one group of 
individuals and companies will be able to compete: those that are 
able to offer their products substantially for free. This seems an 
unfair choice, because it limits software production to huge 
companies with other non-software products, or to individuals who 
have absolutely no motivation for profit. While both these groups 
are wonderful in themselves, the bulk of innovation in American 
business has come from individuals and companies in between: small 
start-ups, people who start a company out of their garage or 
basement, medium sized companies who can quickly respond to the 
changing needs of a small, select market. The result will be 
unnecessary lost time and greater expense for people who use 
software to accomplish real things, like scientific research, 
running a business, searching for information, and everything else 
that we use computers for.
    Section three: Changes to the settlement and other possible 
remedies The strongest possible remedy, of course, is one that would 
dissolve Microsoft and its assets. Presumably, their cash could go 
to the government and be put into education or something to help the 
next generation of software developers. Microsoft's program code 
could then be put into the public domain, and different companies 
can compete to offer improvements to it, or take things from it for 
use in their own products, thus distributing it to all takers. This 
probably would cause a little turmoil, but would in the long term 
(and short term, remember how quick innovation in computers can be) 
be very good for everybody. Even a lesser remedy of breaking apart 
the company into separate units does not seem unreasonable, if it is 
well considered. But assuming that these very strong remedies are 
deemed too much, here are ways of improving the proposed settlement 
instead.
    The proposed settlement is inadequate on several counts. The 
remedy should include a large monetary penalty, on the order of the 
billions of dollars companies and individuals have lost trying to 
compete against Microsoft's unfair practices, or the billions of 
dollars individuals have lost in productivity because the market 
could not accomodate their needs efficenly. This amount must also be 
this large, because if it is not a substantial portion of 
Microsoft's tens of billions of dollars of illegally gained cash 
reserves, then it is not really a punishment, nor does it deter 
other potential abusive monopolies (or Microsoft itself) from 
further illegal activities. At the very least, the federal 
governemnt itself is owed much of this money, as in my case, a 
Department of Energy researcher. I estimate several thousands of 
dollars in computer equipment and time could have been spent on 
other things in my case alone. Whether a monetary penalty can also 
be extracted for the benefit of individuals and companies that have 
also suffered, and how that benefit should be redistributed to them, 
should also be more fully explored. The remedy needs to include an 
independent group to monitor Microsoft to make sure that their 
illegal activities do not continue, and possibly to investigate all 
the forms that these activities took. This group needs to have the 
influence and power to immediately act if they uncover problems, not 
just a powerless series of recommendations. Because of the enormous 
pace of software innovation, a delay of six months in enforcement is 
uncomfortably long, a delay of more than a year is unacceptable. 
Very strong powers should be explicitly granted to such a committee.
    The ideas in the settlement about opening up API's and pieces of 
code to allow other programs to work correctly with Microsoft's 
programs is a good one, but someone needs to carefully look for and 
close loopholes in the agreement (or make sure that a different 
remedy does not have such loopholes) that might permit Microsoft 
from not fully complying. In light of their illegal pratices, no 
aspect of how their products interface with other programs or a 
users data, should be hidden from any programmer or potential 
competitor, whether they are part of a for-profit company, or an 
open source developer. There must be no exeptions, either for what 
information is available or who gets it. As written, the settlement 
includes many unnecessary or dangerous exclusions. In principle, 
this is a purely punitive measure; an ordinary company would be 
allowed to choose what parts of the inner workings and interfaces of 
its products should be available to collaborators or competitors. 
Historically, many have chosen to make much of this information 
available in hopes of gathering many independent devolpers to extend 
and improve their product.
    In the case of an illegal monopolist, there is no gain to be had 
by sharing this information Thus, this is an important part of the 
solution, and its details need to be as strong as possible. It has 
been reported that the law allows for such punitive measures to be 
applied, even in the sometimes murky area of intellectual property, 
patents, and copyright, when a crime has been committed, as it has 
in this case.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Richard Gran
    Richard Gran [email protected] http://www.hep.umn.edu/
gran or use
    [email protected]



MTC-00018398

From: Stephen Kemler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to offer my opinion that the proposed anti-trust 
settlement that Microsoft Corporation has reached with a number of 
Plaintiffs in this case is grossly ineffective. As a network 
administrator at a private corporation, I am forced on a continual 
basis to deal with issues caused by inferior Microsoft products that 
we are forced to use because they are so wide spread. This proposed 
settlement will do little to nothing to resolve the real issues in 
this case, and Microsoft will continue to act in ways that make 
competition impossible.
    Thank you,
    Stephen Kemler
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Network Administrator



MTC-00018399

From: Michael Rybarski
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a step in the right direction but it 
is shortsighted with it's remedies to stop Microsoft's illegal 
practices. Two major flaws are: easy to circumvent definitions of 
compliance and lack of regulations in regard to Restrictive License 
Terms. I do not think that the settlement will fix the Microsoft's 
illegal practices and I do not support it.
    Michael Rybarski
    Network Manager
    Shell Vacations, LLC

[[Page 26562]]

    Northbrook, IL



MTC-00018400

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has 
proven its bad faith many times in the past. Conduct remedies will 
only play into its hands. Stronger measures must be taken.
    Beau Cronin



MTC-00018401

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I feel that the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in the Microsoft 
anti-trust case will not truly fulfill its purpose. The PFJ contains 
misleading and overly narrow definitions and provisions. These 
narrow definitions provide large loopholes Microsoft will be able to 
exploit to continue their anticompetitive practices.
    It also fails to prohibit intentional incompatibilities 
historically used by Microsoft. This will be used again and again to 
prevent new products from being able to compete in the software 
domain. It was used with DOS, and will likely be used again against 
Linux-based applications.
    I hope that you will at the very least re-work the PFJ so that 
it covers the loopholes people have already found. Without doing 
that, Microsoft will have free reign to do what it has historically 
done in the past, and the antitrust case will have only been a waste 
of my money (as a tax payer).
    sincerely,
    TJ
    Trey Jackson
    [email protected]
    ``Life isn't too short, it's that you're dead for so 
long.''
    - No Fear



MTC-00018402

From: WolfWings/Rhenthar/Mneumenth/etc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have serious problems with the suggested settlement as 
currently published. Many of the terms have been defined so narrowly 
that Microsoft could well avoid the supposed restrictions entirely.
    The failure to require advanced notification of possibly drastic 
changes in the Windows operation system structure and design also 
makes the supposed ``restrictions'' which require 
disclosure of API's and other information to allow compatable 
software to be written for much of the operating system allows 
Microsoft to use their ``current'' system, and publish 
information on it, while designing a secondary, incompatable system, 
and suddenly releasing it as the ``final version'' and 
breaking all the existing middleware. This again, defeats the entire 
purpose of the settlement restrictions.
    The fact that patents are not properly addressed is another 
problem I have with the settlement as published. The failure to 
require disclosure at the very least of which patents apply to the 
Windows Operation System, removes any use of any 
``compatability'' information, because implementing it, 
could end up being illegal due to patent infringement.
    I'm sure you've recieved many well-worded, and much longer-
winded comments about the settlement, but these are the two largest 
problems I have with it currently. Thank you for taking the time to 
read this.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Armstrong
    3741 Keystone Ave. #5
    Culver City, CA 90034



MTC-00018403

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00018404

From: Scott Thatcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to express my oposition to the current proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. The settlement does not 
do enough to punish Microsoft for its past disregard for the law, 
and it does not do enough to make sure Microsoft does not repeat the 
business practices that have already caused so much harm to others 
in the computer industry.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Thatcher
    215 S. Florence
    Kirksville, MO 63501
    [email protected]



MTC-00018405

From: Joe Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is in my opinion that the proposed settlement is no more than 
another slap on the wrist that will be ignored by Microsoft. if you 
are looking for a true solution, the Microsoft Windows sourcecode 
should be placed in the public domain, so that true competition in 
the software industry can be achived on a level playing field.



MTC-00018406

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a terrible abrogation of 
justice. I am joining the Kegel petition (http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html) and am sending this directly to you as an 
individual input.
    Thank you,
    Kurt
    Kurt Andersen 
    (509) 921-3792
    Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion and does not represent 
any opinion that may or may not be held by my employer.



MTC-00018407

From: Dave Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    While I don't have the time to list out the number of reasons I 
believe the settlement with Mircosoft is not as complete as I think 
it should be, I believe, based on the information I have read, 
including many of the suggested readings for the case, that the 
current settlement with Microsoft does not realy punnish them. 
Please reconsider the settlement, and strengthen the final 
judgement.
    My basic complaint: I don't think the current judgement is in 
the best interest of the overall public.
    Thank you for your time.
    David Mitchell



MTC-00018408

From: Frank Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:00pm
Subject: I'm opposed to the settlement
    As a long-time computer hobbyist and amateur programmer (I have 
been playing with computers for about 25 years now) I am strongly 
opposed to the proposed settlement in the US v Microsoft antitrust 
case.
    Microsoft has gone from ``one more software company'' 
to THE software company, and this is not healthy for an industry 
which is as fast-growing and innovative as the computer industry 
should be. I say that it should be fast-growing and innovative, but 
unfortunately Microsoft's view is that anything that is bad for 
Microsoft is bad for the industry and this is not the case. Many 
promising technologies and companies have come and gone because 
Microsoft either bought them out to make them disappear or 
``cut off their air supply'' in the infamous words of the 
Netscape trial.
    Microsoft in its current form is bad for the future of the 
computer industry in the USA and throughout the world. This proposed 
settlement is bad for the future of the computer industry as it will 
simply give Microsoft a pass to continue to squash anyone who looks 
like a competitor. How many companies have not brought a new 
innovation forward simply because ``if we do, Microsoft will 
kill us''? We will never know the answer to that question.
    I am not a US citizen. I am Canadian. However, I hope that my 
comment will be taken into consideration because the computer 
industry is world-wide and Microsoft's influence is (unfortunately) 
worldwide as well.
    Frank Cox
    Melville, Saskatchewan
    Canada



MTC-00018409

From: Tom Field
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe that the proposed settlement is harsh enough. 
Microsoft was knowlingly engaged in unethical and illegal activity 
and needs to be controlled.

[[Page 26563]]



MTC-00018410

From: Randy McLaughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 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
    As a software developer with over 20 years'' experience, 
and as the owner of a small software business, I'd like to comment, 
pursuant to the Tunney Act, on the Proposed Final Judgment in United 
States v. Microsoft. The proposed settlement attempts to impose 
restrictions on Microsoft in order to limit Microsoft's ability to 
engage in further monopolistic practices. The settlement can be 
expected to fail to provide effective remedy. It strikes me that the 
situation is similar to the ongoing race between those who write 
software viruses and those who are trying to protect our computer 
systems against them. A vulnerability is discovered and a number 
viruses are released exploiting the vulnerability. Security experts 
discover the virus and rush to find ways to stop the spread of the 
virus and to eliminate the vulnerability. Unfortunately, the virus 
authors have a head start. If they are able to release a strong 
enough virus it will be able to cause significant damage and 
massively reproduce before being detected. Even more time is needed 
and more infections occur before effective countermeasures can be 
developed and distributed. Meanwhile other people throughout the 
world are busy looking for new vulnerabilities to exploit and new 
ways to propagate and cause damage.
    The proposed settlement attempts to identify ways in which 
Microsoft can be regulated based upon today's software and 
practices. But software is dynamic. Today's software is different 
than software written five years ago. Many key technologies have 
developed during that short time. For example, during that time 
Microsoft has developed the .NET platform and has reoriented the 
architecture of its products around that platform. We can expect 
that trend to continue. Indeed, the proposed settlement provides 
incentive to Microsoft to come up with new technologies and new 
procedures that allow it to get around the limitations imposed by 
the proposed settlement. If the settlement requires disclosure of 
APIs on a given date, Microsoft will have incentive to redefine the 
interface between its products so that the interface falls outside 
the definition of ``API''. They will also have incentive 
to be sure that the APIs change to include new or modified services 
shortly after disclosure.
    The proposed settlement establishes a situation similar to one 
where a team of security experts is brought together to build 
software that will detect and disable all known viruses as of a 
given date and then go home assured that there will be no more 
outbreaks in the next five years. The proposed settlement assumes 
that a Technical Committee of three people could keep up with all 
the changes made by the thousands of Microsoft employees. Might we 
also assume that a small committee with no power to take action 
would similarly provide protection against any new viruses that crop 
up, despite the efforts of the experts to plug the known 
vulnerabilities? Anyone with any experience in the field would know 
that there is no way to know or to fix all the vulnerabilities, nor 
to anticipate all possible attacks. While the team was working and 
after they went home others would be continuing looking for new ways 
to cause mayhem.
    The proposed settlement establishes a framework and invites 
Microsoft to turn its massive corporate resources toward finding a 
way to get around the framework. Effective action is needed to 
terminate the illegal monopoly, deny Microsoft the fruits of its 
statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no practices 
likely to result in monopolization in the future. The proposed 
settlement can be expected to be totally ineffective. Any solution 
must be as nimble as the monopolist and in light of past 
monopolistic practice, must truly enable the competition.
    Randy McLaughlin
    Red Wing, Minnesota



MTC-00018411

From: Jay Zimmermann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel that the proposed anti-trust settlement is a bad idea and 
fails to address the issues at hand. I respectfully request that it 
be reconsidered.
    Thank you.
    Jay Zimmermann
    Oakland, California
    510-261-8509



MTC-00018412

From: Barry King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement TWMC:
    The remedy is far too little, too late. Microsoft's lucrative 
practices of strongarming ISVs and OEMs are far less important for 
the future than what it plans to do with distributed component such 
as those it plans to base the company on using C# and .NET. 
These future products have not been addressed by the remedy, but are 
merely continuations of a code base which has been used by Microsoft 
to maintain a stranglehold over innovation and commerce, directly 
harming the U.S. public by providing shoddy, insecure software at an 
egregious total cost of ownership. Because these initiatives have no 
name at this point, more emphasis must be placed on intellectual 
property principles and less on specific product. Intercompatibility 
is the principle which must be upheld, not niggling issues of 
bundling and product licensing of such-and-such version of Windows 
or Internet Explorer. Either Microsoft must be forced to use public 
standards of process intercommunication or it must be forced to show 
the exact behavior of the software it releases to developers. As 
defined in the remedy, a documented API is not broad enough for this 
issue. Complete APIs must be disclosed, including implementation and 
optimization issues.
    However, enforcement of this will be impossible given the scale 
of the task. With hundreds of components being built in new ways and 
platforms than can be predicted in specific terms, there is no way 
that this remedy will address the monopolistic practices Microsoft 
WILL perform in the future. The remedy will be unenforceable given 
the role of the TC as outlined by the remedy, no matter how many 
consultants the TC can hire on Microsoft's dollar. Even if the TC 
does the job perfectly, it will not fix what is broken at Microsoft: 
the company's total lack of commitment to quality and 
responsibility.
    Furthermore, by restricting the access to Microsoft source code 
to the TC (and, presumeably the TC's staff) no means are given by 
which open-source programmers can ensure their code has not been 
stolen by Microsoft in violation of the licensing agreements. The 
courts are not prepared to handle this sort of dispute, and no open-
source (or for that matter, closed-source) competitor can afford to 
go against Microsoft in court. A way outside of the court system 
must be found to solve this problem, and this remedy is not it.
    In the end, the court has two choices to properly settle this. 
Either convert substantial amounts of Microsoft's Intellectual 
Property to the public domain as de-facto standards or force the 
company to rework its products to function well on competitor's 
operating systems, specifically those competing operating systems 
most used by the U.S. public, namely Linux and Mac OS.
    Signed,
    Barrington King
    Co-Founder
    Wyrdwright, LLC



MTC-00018413

From: Thom Felton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As it now stands I believe that the settlement is not a 
punishment to MS and in fact will enhance their monopoly and enhance 
the likelihood of their abusing their monopoly position.
    Thom Felton, Ph.D.



MTC-00018414

From: Fromhold-Treu, Rene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir,
    I am writing in response to the DOJ's announcement to settle 
with Microsoft in the Department's long-running anti-trust suit.
    There are many reasons why this settlement is a terrible idea 
(please see http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ for more arguments about 
it), but my primary concern is that in its current form, the 
settlement will essentially put MS in the same position it was a 
couple of years ago: under scrutiny by some third-party (at that 
time, I believe it was the DOJ) that can protest actions by MS, but 
that does not have the ability to impose any

[[Page 26564]]

fines that have any sort of impact on MS. And, just as it has always 
happened in the past, MS will use every available opportunity to 
strengthen its grip on the personal desktop, as well as data 
processing in general.
    The only way to prevent MS from strangling the computing market 
is to separate its OS (including its .NET initiative) from its other 
products. In its current form, the settlement will only weaken the 
American software industry, not strengthen it.
    Rene Fromhold-Treu
    660 Tyrella Avenue, Apt 7
    Mountain View, CA 94043



MTC-00018415

From: Tyler Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Friends,
    I would like like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in 
United States v. Microsoft.
    As a software engineer with 10 years of experience programming 
web and middleware applications, I feel that the Proposed Final 
Judgment: a) completely fails to address the underlying conditions 
that caused the action in the first place; and b) reflects a naivete 
of the technical issues at hand by the parties negotiating the 
settlement. Because the Proposed Final Judgment focuses on 
specifics, for example narrow definitions of product classes (i.e. 
``middleware'') and even naming product release numbers 
and product names, the settlement guarantees that by the time the 
settlement is signed and approved by all relevant parties it will be 
out of date. Simply put, the computer industry moves far faster than 
the legal and policy world where these negotiation are taking 
place.Thus, the approach taken in the Proposed Final Judgment is 
fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned. Instead of defining 
specifics the settlement should stick to generic definitions of 
software types and business practices . The will prevent Microsoft 
form simply renumbering and/or renaming products to escape complying 
with the Proposed Final Judgment. In particular such a settlement 
that Microsoft provide full and complete documentation of all file 
formats, APIs, networking and storage protocols, etc.
    Thank you for you attention in this matter. I hope you take my 
request to completely scrap the current Proposed Final Judgment and 
genera;l approach taken in defining the settlement seriously.
    Tyler Johnson
    Mill Valley, California
    [email protected]



MTC-00018416

From: Joshua Bernstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As a strong follower of the digital age and as a student who is 
betting his life on competition in the marketplace to suceed in 
life, I hearby would like to stat that I feel the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement is simply a poor choice for the Country. Futhermore, such 
a settlement would force the computing industry to ``suffer the 
slings and arrows of an outrages corporation.''
    Thank you for your time and considering in reguard to my 
feelings
    -Joshua Bernstein
    Undergrad Sophmore in Computer Engineering
    Systems Administrator
    College of Engineering and Mines
    Unversity of Arizona, Tucson Arizona



MTC-00018417

From: julesa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to object to the proposed final judgement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I believe the proposed settlement falls 
far short of punishing Microsoft for their illegal past behavior, 
and will fail to prevent illegal behavior in the future.
    The judgement does not mention anything about limiting 
Microsoft's behavior in regard to newer products such as the Xbox 
and .Net technologies. It has been established that Microsoft has 
repeatedly abused its power upon gaining a significant share of a 
given market. Microsoft will attempt to extend its monopoly into 
home entertainment systems and Internet commerce technologies. I 
believe the settlement must address Microsoft's behavior in these 
areas.
    Because they have significantly overcharged consumers for their 
products for several years now, they have a large war chest which 
will give them the resources to outcompete other players in any 
market they choose to focus on. How do you remedy that? It's a tough 
question, but simply placing limits on what Microsoft can do with 
specific products, especially just their older ones, is surely 
insufficient. They will simply develop new products (perhaps using 
ideas from old ones) which don't fall under the judgement's 
restrictions.
    A revised judgement should include an effective enforcement 
mechanism, unlike the proposed final judgement. It should require 
that Microsoft publish the specifications to file format standards 
such as Word, Excel, and Powerpoint documents, and allow anyone to 
write a program that can read these formats. That would allow 
consumers to use whatever product they like to communicate with each 
other. It should limit what Microsoft can do in ANY market, not just 
markets in which they have already crushed the competition 
illegally. Thank you for your time.
    Jules Agee
    System Administrator
    Pacific Coast Feather Co.
    Student, Computing and Software Systems
    University of Washington
    [email protected]
    8202 382nd Ave SE
    Snoqualmie, WA 98065



MTC-00018418

From: Jason Sharpee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I recently lost a bid on a service contract with a company, 
because Microsoft consulting services were able to ``sweeten 
the deal'' by providing ``courtesy'' licensing of 
their products along with their services. That does not put me on an 
even playing field to compete in my market, because Microsoft is 
willingly leveraging their other dominant markets to gain the 
advantage in the services industry. This, in my opinion, is the 
definition of a corporate monopoly.
    I do not see the purposed settlement addressing these and many 
other issues I have, and I consequently disagree with it.
    Jason Sharpee
    Network Engineer, Tambra Technologies
    7401 N. Pierron Rd.
    Glendale, WI 53209
    [email protected]



MTC-00018419

From: Luke Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very concerned that Microsoft is continuing to use its 
monopoly to stifle innovation and competition.
    There is an application barrier level for all programmers and 
competing companies that forces a company to write products that run 
on the dominant OS. In this case that is MS Windows. This gives MS 
an incredible advantage and places it on a level with the road 
network, the electricity grid and other essential services. Sadly, 
MS has used this power to restrict fair entry for other companies, 
such as Netscape, Real Networks, Java (a programming language), Dr 
Dos. The ``Court's Findings of Fact'' in the previous 
civil case against Microsoft section III, B is the most relevant. As 
a Software Engineer I can assure you that because of its scale, 
Microsoft IS the playing field, however, it is anything but fair.
    Luke Miller



MTC-00018420

From: Johnson, Brian E
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing in response to the call for public comments on the 
proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and nine 
states and the Microsoft Corporation.
    I have used Microsoft products at work for the past twelve 
years. The company that I work for has spent hundreds of millions of 
dollars upgrading software to keep up with Microsoft's current 
offerings. There is no difference in my productivity now versus ten 
years ago with three or four generation older equipment. In fact I 
have had some of the greatest data losses just in the last few 
months which would have cost my company thousands of dollars had we 
not had backups stored in a separate location.
    My point is that I have not seen one hint of innovation from 
this company and because of its monopoly, very little innovation in 
the software market.

[[Page 26565]]

    In order to restore serious competition we need a serious 
settlement, not a slap on the wrist.
    The following link contains a proposal that I fully support: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html We desperately need to 
restore competition in this country or the rest of the world will do 
it for us! What brand of car do you drive?
    Sincerely,
    Brian Johnson
    7702 19th Ave NE
    Seattle WA 98115
    Flight Test S&C Analysis
    206-655-5727 M/S 14-KF



MTC-00018421

From: misuba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement fails to require Microsoft to release 
the specifications for the format of Office documents, which are 
rapidly becoming a lingua franca and are one of MS'' most 
powerful tools for breaking open standards. Stated more 
specifically, no part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see 
``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ?39).
    I think the proposed settlement is far too lenient, full of 
loopholes like this one, and leaves Microsoft with the power and 
money to make even more egregious anticompetitive moves, and get 
away with it. It's a bad idea.
    Thanks for your time,
    Mike Sugarbaker
    Epistemological Remodeling
    [email protected]
    http://www.gibberish.com/



MTC-00018422

From: Clifton Bullard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Per the conditions of the Tulley Act, I wish to register a 
comment against the current proposed settlement with the Microsoft 
Corporation. While I think many of the measures indicate good 
intentions on the part of those drawing up the settlement, in its 
current state the settlement will serve little purpose except to be 
a token gesture in the general direction of the problems it was 
meant to solve.
    In the interest of brevity, I will not go into specifics 
concerning the legion of shortcomings the current settlement 
contains. Suffice to say that it is my earnest and heartfelt opinion 
that a great deal more work needs to be done before this settlement 
would actually be capable of reaching its stated goals.
    Sincerely,
    J. Clifton Bullard
    Computer Programmer
    United States Postal Service
    Memphis, TN



MTC-00018423

From: David Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settelment *is* a bad idea, as it is not only a 
travesty of justice (how many millions of $$'s spent getting a 
guilty conviction, to settle for a wrist slap?), but basically tells 
Microsoft that they can do whatever they want, as there no rule of 
law, at least not one that applies to them.
    And no, this is not a form letter, nor did I cut and paste any 
of it.
    ``What? In riddles?'' said Gandalf. ``No! For I 
was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the 
wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by 
the young are wearying.''-``Lord of the 
Rings'', JRR Tolkien. [email protected]



MTC-00018424

From: Thomas Humphrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:05pm
Subject: No to Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well- intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Humphrey 9630 Keeler Ave. Skokie, IL 60076



MTC-00018425

From: J. Hess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the proposed settlement is a bad idea, because it 
fails to address the full scope Microsoft's anticompetitive 
practices, the remedy is so specific to Microsoft's current software 
product that it will soon be obsoleted in many respects, 
Restrictions Microsoft is allowed to place on providing information 
required to use their software and operating system APIs and the 
generous allowances they are made such as using their own MSDN 
network (A Microsoft product) rather than an independent party to 
handle the distribution of information render the remedies useless 
for encouraging competition or discouraging their practices. 
Moreover, the proposed settlement doesn't seem to have any 
significant enforcement device-as they reached this point, 
clearly it's necessary.
    The proposed settlement looks like a ``Get out of jail free 
card'' for Microsoft and the remedy appears to be mostly non-
substantive. -James Hess



MTC-00018426

From: Adam Bender
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I firmly believe that the Proposed Final Judgement in the 
Department of Justice's Anti-trust case against Microsoft is nothing 
more than a slap on the wrist. Microsoft has for years engaged in 
anti-competitive, and often illegal, business practices, they have 
used their position as an undisputed monopoly of operating systems 
and software to produce sub-mediocre software that compromises the 
security and productivity of the United States government and 
private citizens, and cares about nothing more than increasing its 
profits at the cost of bearing any resemblance to an institution 
with a conscience. However, I would like to point out a specific 
problem with the PFJ. It makes no provisions to stop Microsoft's 
strangle-hold on OEM computer manufacturers with regards to the 
operating systems that are installed on new PC's. A customer seeking 
to buy a computer without a Windows operating system (OS) will have 
to search very hard to find one, because Microsoft will not license 
Windows to any PC manufacturer that sells any PC without that OS. 
Therefore, if that same company also wanted to sell computers with 
Windows, it would have to pay much more for it, and thus would be 
driven out of business from competitors who comply with Microsoft's 
demands.
    I believe that any and all measures to eliminate the death grip 
that Microsoft has on our country should be enforced
    Thank you,
    Adam Bender
    [email protected]
    www.andrew.cmu.edu/abender



MTC-00018427

From: Justin Guerin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Justin Guerin, and I work at Atmel Corp. in Colorado 
Springs. I am a product engineer, and I work with computers a lot. I 
am very interested in the Microsoft trial, and feel compelled to 
comment on what I think is a bad idea: the proposed final judgment, 
in its current form. The main point to remember is that Microsoft 
should not be allowed to retain the benefits of its illegal actions. 
Any settlement should also insure that Microsoft cannot continue to 
act illegally.
    Thank you,
    Justin Guerin
    Product Engineer

[[Page 26566]]

    Atmel Corp.



MTC-00018428

From: Peter Low
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consultant with a strategy consulting firm, primarily 
serving high technology companies. On reviewing the Proposed Final 
Judgement in United States v. Microsoft (PFJ), I strongly believe 
that the PFJ is an ineffective remedy for Microsoft's unlawful 
conduct. My first major concern is that the language of the PFJ 
provides opportunities for Microsoft to continue its activities, 
even while conforming to the letter of the agreement. My second 
major concern is that the PFJ does not provide coverage for non-
commercial software developers-a potentially significant 
source of innovation and competition. I urge that the PFJ not be 
accepted as is.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Peter Low
    Note: the above opinions are my own, and are not meant to 
represent my company.



MTC-00018429

From: James T Perkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree that the proposed settlement is adequate. James
    James Perkins
    [email protected]
    http://loowit.net/james
    True love comes quietly, without banners or flashing lights. If 
you hear bells, get your ears checked.-Erich Segal



MTC-00018430

From: Jay R.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad. Redhat's offer to 
provide the operating system would be an improvement



MTC-00018431

From: Edd Hillman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:06pm
Subject: Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    The actions in the US have far reaching effects around the 
globe. Please make the right decisions.
    Edd Hillman
    59a gray St.
    Lochee
    Dundee
    Scotland



MTC-00018432

From: Matthew G. Saroff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that this settlement with Microsoft is inadequate. I 
believe that any behavioral remedy must prior require government 
approval, rather than rejection after the fact, of any Microsoft 
actions.
    My preferred solution is a structural solution. -
    Matthew G. Saroff, E.I.T.
    3702 Labyrinth Road
    Baltimore, MD 21215
    Telephone: (410)585-1508
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00018433

From: Andra Medea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam-
    I am a software technician who works with both Microsoft and 
non-Microsoft products. Please, please do not miss this chance to 
stop the Microsoft monopoly before it gets any larger.
    Computers are central to our economy. Already my small business 
customers are being forced into decisions that they do not want to 
make, because of Microsoft's strong-arm tactics. This isn't an issue 
for software companies, but for any business customer that uses a 
computer. That means nearly everyone in business.
    You must be under considerable pressure to back down. We need 
you to carry through on this.-
    Andra Medea



MTC-00018434

From: Milnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my displeasure with the performance of the 
U.S. Dept. of Justice in its case against Microsoft. I cant imagine 
that you would let Microsoft supply ``low income schools'' 
with computers with they're operating system and software installed 
on it. As a parent of two I am unhappy with our local school 
districts decision to use Microsoft products exclusively. No doubt 
their decision was based in large part by Bill Gate's grants 
(bribes) to help purchase the software in the first place. It now 
forces me, as a parent to go out and purchase Microsoft products for 
my computers at home so that my kid's homework will be compatible 
with ``Microsoft Word 2000'' format. Also the school 
district has to expend a considerable amount of resources to keep 
all the licenses up to date on there thousands of machines.
    As you can see, ``giving'' low income schools 
``Microsoft products'' will result in more financial 
hardship as the schools will have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft 
to keep the systems current and the parents in these schools will be 
compelled to bye Microsoft products for the home. Not much of a 
punishment for a company accused of running a monopoly. This will 
just ensure more future customers.
    The best alternative I have heard so far is the one proposed by 
RedHat inc., maker of an open source operating system. Let Microsoft 
spend all there fines in buying just the hardware for the schools 
and take Red Hat up on there offer of providing, free of charge 
(including future updates) the operating system and technical 
support for these ``low income schools''.
    David B. Foster
    3814 Levitt St
    Bellingham WA 98226



MTC-00018435

From: Panthera Altaica
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea. It just tells Microsoft to 
keep abuseing it's monopoly while makeing it sound like it's doing 
something else.



MTC-00018436

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement-please restrict Microsoft from 
excluding ``free software''
    Without long explanations, I am concerned about Microsoft's 
licensing restrictions that exclude all other operating systems. 
Microsoft have effectively excluded developers who use Microsoft 
development products from writing software that could be run on non-
Windows systems (i.e. Linux+WINE). This, in effect, extends MS's OS 
to include all applications written for it. Since Microsoft also 
maintains market dominance in development suites (because of it use 
of undocumented OS API calls to its monopoly OS), Microsoft has a 
means (when combined with the licence distribution agreement) to 
effectively restrict Microsoft developers to Windows only products. 
Additionally, even developers using non-microsoft development 
products could inadvertently violate the MS distribution agreement 
if they buy and include components from other venders in their 
product.
    For example: Suppose I want to write a spreadsheet program that 
will run on both Windows and Linux. In order to avoid any licence 
concerns I use Borland's development suite, Delphi. I also purchase 
a ``Excel import filter'' from ABC company and use it in 
my product. I would be unaware if ABC company created the component 
I purchased with a Microsoft development suite. Thus, I could be 
violating MS's distribution agreement. Additionally, MS can use the 
``redistribution agreement'' to restrict services to only 
those running their operating systems. (See, MSNBC's download 
restrictions..)
    Finally, there remains concern over patent infringement for 
Windows compatible operating systems. In order to avoid patent 
infringement, any company or person needs to know the what patents 
he/she could be violating. It would seem reasonable that clone 
operating system makers should be able to have access to the list 
patents that Microsoft holds in relation to its operating system. 
Without this the threat of a possible lawsuit from Microsoft (I hear 
that they are very difficult to deal with in court) could scare off 
financial investment and thus virtually eliminate competition on the

[[Page 26567]]

desktop. Please take note of the finding of fact in regard to what 
makes a viable operating system alternative.
    In order to effectively protect the consumer, any agreement 
needs not only to address the past concerns but to provide 
guidelines that protect the future. When this court case began, 
there was no viable alternative to Windows, but today it appears 
that soon there will be. Microsoft has realized this and has been 
taking measures to eliminate it. In my opinion, the proposed 
agreement falls short of protecting consumers from Microsoft's 
business practices and thus having a choice of operating systems in 
the future.
    Please consider my comments in you deliberations. Freedom is 
choice: fair and equal choice.
    Richard Giroux
    Network Engineer
    This e-mail message is directed in confidence solely to the 
person or entity to whom it is addressed. The contents of this e-
mail may be subject to solicitor-client privilege. All rights to 
that privilege are expressly claimed and not waived. Any review, 
retransmission, dissemination or other use of the contents of this 
e-mail by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited. We would appreciate a reply if this e-mail has been 
delivered to someone other than its intended recipient.



MTC-00018437

From: John Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a very bad 
idea. Dan Kegel, whose petition I signed, outlines many of the 
problems in great detail, but I wanted to add one example specific 
to my own experience. I have spent the last three years working for 
two different start-ups here in Seattle. It is rare for a week to go 
by without someone saying ``Well, let's hope Microsoft doesn't 
do X, ``cause if they do there goes that part of our 
business.'' This company is so huge, with so many resources, 
and such a vast scope of what ``fits'' into Windows, that 
no one is safe from them. I work with dedicated, talented 
programmers and testers, with years of experience in the field. We 
have chosen, in some cases with a related loss of income, to work 
for anyone other than Microsoft, because of our concerns with what 
they are doing to computing, and to preserve some choice for 
consumers and businesses in the world of software.
    All that said, we all worry any time we hear something new from 
across the lake. We never know what they will decide to implement 
next that will take away our ability to exist. You can be better 
than Microsoft technically, but you can't compete with 
``free,'' and no one else has their brand name and 
marketing budget. As long as Microsoft has the freedom to break the 
rules with impunity, the marketplace of ideas in terms of computer 
software will suffer. Even if Windows continues to dominate the 
desktop, which seems highly likely, at the very least it would be 
nice if people other than Microsoft's applications developers had an 
honest shot at selling product and making a go of things.
    Thank you very much for your time.
    Sincerely,
    John Stewart  NetMotion Wireless
    [email protected]



MTC-00018438

From: Mijo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is very bad idea.
    Mike Dean, Software Engineer
    Cleveland, OH



MTC-00018439

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disappointed in the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The 
findings of fact starkly demonstrate how anti-consumer Microsoft has 
been, but this settlement does virtually nothing to halt these anti-
competitive practices, or to punish them for all these previous 
acts. At a minimum, the API's need to be opened up, and security 
vulnerabilities should be required to be made public. The break-up 
ruling still seems much more fair than any other solution I've seen.
    --Jon Hamkins



MTC-00018440

From: Redman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is clearly not in the public's interest. I've 
listed some of the key problems below: The proposed settlement:
    (1) does not prevent Microsoft from bundling application 
software into its operating system. Illegal bundling and tying 
practices are not in the proposed settlement.
    2) relies too heavily on equipment manufacturers to promote more 
competition.
    3) does not cover the new generation of applications. Since the 
settlement applies only to products that were in use from 
1995-98, it won't stop Microsoft from repeating anti-
competitive practices with current and future products. By simply 
re-packaging old software, they can continue past practices.
    (4) lets Microsoft decide which products are part of the Windows 
operating system and which are applications. Many Microsoft 
applications have been integrated into the OS in the past, blocking 
competitive applications, and the proposed settlement will still 
allow this.
    (5) gives Microsoft control over many enforcement decisions, 
essentially putting them charge of the keys to the safe!
    (6) would not require Microsoft to comply with computer industry 
standards, or prevent the company from undermining or altering 
standards, even when the intent is to deliberately deceive 
competitors.
    (7) would allow Microsoft to disable competitive software 
products, effectively sabotaging any competition. Secret hardware 
specifications are not in general Microsoft's doing, but they are a 
significant obstacle for the development of the free operating 
systems that can provide competition for Windows. Require Microsoft 
not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, 
unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, 
so that any programmer can implement software to support the same 
hardware.
    D.A. Dederick Future Software



MTC-00018441

From: Colin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've been following this trial very closely, and I believe the 
settlement, as it stands, is either a farce or a travesty. And I 
think it's too serious to be a farce. It's time to once again remind 
the disillusioned citizenry that this country does not have a price 
tag. Money CANNOT be given this much power, or I dread the future I 
will be consigning my children or grandchildren to.
    The road to megacorpocracy is paved with tiny little stones; 
please, reject this settlement for the sake of our children. Colin 
[email protected] Fightin'' Texas Aggie Class of 
2002



MTC-00018442

From: TC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft. Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry. There are many more 
reason why the PFJ is a flawed settlement, but I leave the fixing to 
another round. Just as long as this judgment, as it stands today, 
does not see the light of day.
    -TC



MTC-00018443

From: Caleb Mardini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:14pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the United States, and as a member of the 
business community, I fear that the proposed settlement in For the 
Microsoft antitrust case is inadequate. The proposed settlement does 
not represent the best interests of US citizens. It does not prevent 
Microsoft from stifling innovation. Microsoft's monopoly status has 
hurt productivity and innovation in this country, and worldwide. Dan 
Kegel, Los Angeles, Software Engineer, Ralph Nader and James Love of 
the Consumer Project on Technology, have all shown that the proposed 
settlement does has problems that must be addressed in order for an 
effective and just settlement to be reached.
    Caleb Mardini Registered Voter
    Bellevue, WA
    WhyNotOwn.com
    606 120th Ave NE
    Bellevue, WA 98005
    Thank you,
    Caleb Mardini
    [email protected]

[[Page 26568]]

    Office: 425-586-7290
    Cell: 206-240-6547



MTC-00018444

From: Stephen Satchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Hesse,
    Attached are my public comments regarding the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgement in US v Microsoft, Civil Action No. 98-1232.
    A paper copy will arrive via Federal Express in the next couple 
of days. If you have any questions, please use this electronic mail 
address to write.

Stephen Satchell
Incline Village, NV
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
PO Box 6900
Incline Village, NV 89450-6900
January 23, 2001
Renata B. Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
United States Dept. of Justice
601 D. Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    1. Commenter is submitting to you this public comment in the 
matter of the proposed settlement in District of Columbia in United 
States v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232.
    2. This comment is written in response to the information 
published Wednesday November 28, 2001, in the Federal Register, Vol 
66, No. 229, on pages 59452-59476 inclusive. This comment is 
being delivered by electronic mail to the electronic mail address 
specified in the Federal Register, 
``[email protected]'', and to the electronic 
mail address specified on the Department of Justice website, 
``[email protected]'', before the sixty-day 
deadline of Friday January 25, 2002.
    3. Commenter Satchell has been a professional software and 
system developer since 1971, and a professional writer of non-
fiction magazine articles about the computer industry and its 
products since 1984. He has fulfilled a number of roles during his 
30-year career: programmer, architect, project manager, software 
test manager, quality assurance test programmer, benchmark writer, 
product reviewer for publication, and magazine technical editor. 
During his career he has been a voting member of the Association for 
Computing Machinery (ACM) and an associate member of the Institute 
of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IEEE). For virtually all 
of his professional career, his work on software and system 
products, product components, and documents and articles has been 
for resale or for general publication.
    4. Commenter Satchell is not a lawyer, nor has he received any 
legal training. This Comment was composed by Commenter exclusively, 
with no input or review by any lawyer or paralegal. Therefore, 
Commenter assumes that the contents of this Comment will be 
interpreted by the reader(s) according to non-legal English language 
usage.
    5. In the context of this comment, the term'' refer to the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment submitted to the Court on November 
6, 2001, and reprinted in the Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 229, 
starting in column 2 of page 59453; the term ``CIS'' shall 
refer to the Competitive Impact Statement submitted to the Court on 
November 15, 2001 and reprinted in the Federal Register, Vol 66, No. 
229, starting in column 1 of page 59460.
    A. Summary of Comments
    6. The Commenter believes that the RPFJ as published does meet 
the needs for a suitable remedy according to the letter of the 
original Complaint, the Findings of Fact, and the Conclusions of Law 
(as amended by the Appeals Court)
    7. The RPFJ falls short in several areas in serving the public 
interest as required by the Tunney Act in 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2).
    8. The RPFJ does not meet the public interest requirement of 15 
USC 16(e)(2) by failing to define the scope of the remedy to cover 
all portions of the software marketplace as it existed in 1999, as 
it exists today, and as it is reasonably expected to exist over the 
life of the RPFJ.
    9. This failure to include the entirety of the software 
marketplace leads directly to an explicit narrowing of choice 
available to the consumer of software products to those products 
produced by commercial enterprises, of Defendant-mandated size and 
structure to have standing (as defined in the RPFJ) in any complaint 
of violation, and in some cases that meet Defendant-imposed 
requirements on business structure and success.
    10. The original Complaint, filed by the United States, limits 
its discussion of the software marketplace to a subset of that 
marketplace, the large-company commercial sector. There is no 
substantive discussion, recognition, or consideration of the 
alternative commercial sector, the cooperative sector, the in-house 
sector, and the non-commercial sector of the software marketplace in 
the original Complaint.
    11. Unlike virtually every other product marketplace in the 
United States, the computer software marketplace has significant 
segments that sell, rent, lease, or license software products for 
consideration other than money. This marketplace segment has a long 
history dating back to the 1950s, when computers were first 
introduced into the economy. The distribution of software without 
the direct exchange of money is still commonplace today. In some 
cases, the exchange is by barter, however informal. In other cases, 
the exchange is without any commitment on the part of the receiver 
in any way; at the extreme, software is put into the public domain, 
to be used by anyone in any way without limitation. The RPFJ 
specifically excludes this segment of the market from consideration 
and protection from violations by the Defendant.
    12. The development of software products by software 
cooperatives has a long and distinguished history. Products produced 
co-operatively continue to increase in market share. Although I have 
not seen a ``code of guiding principles'' for software 
cooperatives published in the cooperative-software community, the 
guidelines published by the National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association are astonishing parallel to the long-held and well-
developed principles that guide software cooperatives. See the Web 
page  for the seven 
guiding principles espoused by NRECA. The RPFJ specifically excludes 
software cooperatives from consideration and protection from 
violations by the Defendant.
    13. The software marketplace includes software products 
developed by or on behalf of a single corporation or company 
(including those not directly involved in computers or software 
sales in any way) exclusively for its internal use; the intent of 
such software product development is to enhance the competitive 
stance of the company in the company's marketplace. During the 
1950s, 1960s, and 1970s the in-house software product and the custom 
software market represented the majority of the software 
marketplace. A good example of such ``in-house'' software 
product is the software used by insurance companies to capture 
customer information quickly and calculate the best insurance rate, 
with a minimum of delay, for that customer. This market segment 
remains strong today, and yields a measurable revenue benefit for 
the organization putting such software in place, but because there 
is no direct link between ``sales'' of the software and 
profit, the degree of harm is very difficult to calculate. This is 
another market segment ignored and unprotected by the terms of the 
RPFJ.
    14. The RPFJ as published in the Federal Register makes clear 
that Defendant Microsoft would be permitted to continue to 
discriminate with regards to API and network protocol disclosures 
against authors and entities not meeting Defendant-mandated 
guidelines for business methods, structure, and level of sales.
    15. The texture and composition of the software marketplace 
continue to change and expand at a rapid pace, far faster than 
traditional commodity or service industries. In particular, there is 
a growing trend toward locating applications not on end-user 
computers, but on servers operated by Application Service Providers 
(ASPs). Microsoft has announced its intentions to enter this market 
as part of its dot-NET initiative. The RPFJ fails to meet its public 
interest requirement by not addressing any aspect of this growing 
trend.
    16. The development cycles for software are very, very short. 
Software products have cradle-to-grave lifetimes that are measured 
in months, and some classes of software have useful lifetimes that 
are measured in intervals as short as hours. Time is the enemy of 
developers, and very few projects go smoothly in the best of 
circumstances. The RPFJ recognizes this fact to some extent, but the 
30-day response time to all complaints of violation injects a delay 
that can be fatal to a software project.
    17. An alternative complaint process is proposed in this 
Comment. The basis of the proposal is the establishment of a triage 
system to quickly dispatch the majority of complaints that are 
trivial to resolve.
    18. In addition, the publication of a ``Frequently Voiced 
Complaint,'' analogous to the ``Frequently Asked 
Questions'' or FAQ that is a staple of Web sites, would reduce

[[Page 26569]]

the number of complaints that would need to be handled individually 
by Microsoft, the Technical Compliance Committee, and the 
Plaintiffs, and can serve to eliminate complaints that would 
otherwise be filed.
    19. Commenter does not attribute these failures and shortcomings 
in the RPFJ to incompetence or connivance on anyone's part. Instead, 
Commenter recognizes the difficulties the Courts face applying 
traditional anti-trust law to the software industry. After extensive 
searching, Commenter has found no anti-trust case in which the 
affected market has had such a large number of non-commercial and 
co-operative components as the software industry has.
    B. The Original Complaint Fails to Describe the Entire Software 
Marketplace
    20. The term ``software'' is the generic label used by 
practitioners in the computer industry to refer to programs that are 
loaded into computers, when required, in order to instruct the 
computers how to perform a specific task desired by their users. A 
program is an ordered list of instructions readable by the computer, 
telling the computer hardware (in conjunction with instructions 
permanently recorded in the computer-``firmware'') 
exactly how to accomplish the task desired by the user.
    21. A programmer is a person who creates the lists of 
instructions that comprise a program, and futher determines that the 
lists of instructions are correct. These lists can be created 
directly, through intermediate tools that in turn generate lists of 
instructions, or through interpreters that take lists written in a 
representation different from that used directly by the computer 
hardware. Programmers also make extensive use of previously written 
lists of instruction-program fragments (functions and 
subroutines)-to reduce the effort of creating a complete list 
of instructions for the computer.
    22. The basic principles of programming are simple enough that 
many practitioners writing programs today were able to teach 
themselves how to do it, usually in conjunction with a specific set 
of tools for writing programs. The costs associated with programming 
have been low enough for the past 30 years that hobbyists and 
students of the craft proliferated and continue to proliferate. Many 
professional practitioners today started out as hobbyists.
    23. The history of the computer industry as we know it today is 
littered with stories about the effects of hobbyists, students, and 
researchers on the growth and maturing of the industry, far too many 
to relate here. The interested reader is referred to the book 
Hackers: Heros of the Computer Revolution by Steven Levy (1984, 
Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-19195-2) for a full 
discussion of the impact of the hobbyist on the software industry 
and the software marketplace; the contents of that book are 
incorporated into these Comments by reference. This book is now 
available in paperback.
    24. There is a initial investment when entering the software 
marketplace, although the amount of that investment, large in the 
1960s, had dropped to under US$300 today. Some early programmers 
reduced their initial investment by renting time from others, 
resulting in significant savings over buying the equipment outright. 
This rental extends to students using University computer systems 
(for a lab fee) to learn their craft.
    25. The actual process of programming is about as difficult and 
incrementally expensive as writing an essay or brief (small program) 
or book (large program).
    26. For small utility programs and specialty software sold 
commercially, the cost of marketing, fulfillment, and technical 
support exceeds, in some cases by orders of magnitude, the cost of 
initial creation. In short, distributing a product through the 
traditional retail channel can incur such high costs that the 
expense prices the software out of the market. The industry 
responded by developing alternative means of distribution and 
compensation, means that eliminated the overhead involved in using a 
traditional sales channel.
    27. Among hobbyists, students, researchers, and in-house 
programmers, many programs were created and distributed without any 
monetary compensation. The compensation was in the form of credit, 
and written credit for the creation of the program and modifications 
to the programs were distributed as part of the program. This is 
very much like the practice in academe with regards to published 
papers. The means of distribution varied based on the product 
audience. Any money paid for such software covered the cost of the 
media, the cost of copying of the software to that media (as much as 
$25 in the 1970s for computer time), and the cost of 
shipping-also very much like academic paper distribution.
    28. Many ``free'' programs were created and given away 
by commercial concerns, who originally developed these code 
fragments to solve specific problems, and thought others could make 
use of the fragments to solve similar problems. Some of this code 
was copyrighted, with permission to use without royalty but with 
credit to the author. Some of this code was donated to the public 
domain.
    29. Several telephone-based systems of networks, the Bulletin 
Board Systems (BBS) and the Unix UUCP network, reduced the cost of 
distribution still further and enhanced the exchange of programs and 
program fragments for the ``monetary unit'' of credit, not 
dollars (or francs or pounds or whatever). The growth of commercial 
nation-wide bulletin board and messaging services such as 
CompuServe, The Source, BIX, and Prodigy further decreased 
distribution costs. The Internet today continues to provide a low-
cost means of distributing programs of all kinds.
    30. Researchers have created a number of useful programs in 
support of their research efforts. Many university and research 
institutions have collected these programs and made them available 
- usually for the cost of duplicating the software onto a 
medium such as punched paper tape or magnetic tape, later floppy 
disks, and today CD-ROMs-for anyone who wants them. Some of 
these programs have restrictions against commercial sale without 
proper license. The most notable ``program'' distributed 
in this way (via magnetic tape, in 1972) was the Unix Operating 
System, created by Ken Thomson and Dennis Ritchie at Bell Labs in 
Murray Hill, NJ.
    31. The well-established practice of sharing programs without 
cost gave the early software publishing industry headaches. The time 
and cost of preparing a program for sale through a traditional 
distribution channel would cause the publisher to raise the sale 
price to recoup this cost. The increased price for retail-channel 
software had an inevitable result given the hobbyist nature of the 
customer base: for every copy of software sold, there was a good 
chance that one or more ``pirate'' copies would be made 
and used by another person.
    32. The marketplace developed an alternative to the traditional 
retail channel. In 1983, PC World Magazine founding editor Andrew 
Fluegelman wanted to distribute his program ``pc-talk'', a 
terminal emulator program he developed for the IBM PC, but without 
the headaches and overhead of dealing with the retail channel. He 
created a concept he trademarked ``Freeware'', in which 
users can give Mr. program to friends to try out, and if a friend 
liked it and continued to use the program that new user would send 
$15 to Mr. Fluegelman in payment for the program. This led to the 
creation of an alternative commercial software marketplace 
generically referred to as ``Shareware''.
    33. Large software projects are almost never written by a single 
person, but instead are written by a group working in coordination. 
A group of students and researchers at the University of California 
at Berkeley added networking as we know it today to AT&T's Unix 
system and distributed it under the name ``Berkeley System 
Distribution'', or BSD. This development (along with the 
replacement of AT&T code to eliminate copyright conflicts) later 
became the core of commercial operating systems, most lately the 
core of Apple Computer's OS X, as well as the core of freely-
distributed version of operating systems.
    34. There has been a growing trend in group development of 
software toward co-operative development of software programs by a 
number of people unrelated by company affiliation, employment, 
contract, or even country of citizenship. The ``apache'' 
Web server program is one such example of a co-operatively developed 
program, and is very widely deployed on the planet. This trend is 
the ``software for credit'' market paradigm writ large, 
but the added benefit for the participants in co-operative software 
projects is that each participant gets to use the entire package for 
the ``price'' of contributing to its creation.
    35. Co-operative efforts have a significant history, tracing 
back to before 1985 and the original development of the software 
used by the CompuServe Information Service. H&R Block sold 
computer time on its DEC PDP-10 computers to hobbyists using the 
trade name ``micronet''; a number of the users of that 
service wrote a messaging system in Fortran to permit them to 
conduct conversations on H&R Block's computer system. 
Eventually, H&R Block spun this activity off as a separate 
business, and handed the maintenance and feature

[[Page 26570]]

enhancement of that software to a professional group of programmers.
    36. In today's computer environment consisting of millions of 
computers (PC, Macintosh, and others) in homes, schools, businesses, 
corporations, and government, people tend to lose sight of the fact 
that the software marketplace started as a custom craft business. 
Owners of computers had a team of programmers, operators, and 
consultants to tend the Great Beast, to teach it the tricks the 
company wanted, and to wring as much usefulness out of the 
``hunk of iron''- especially when the computer cost 
millions of dollars initially. Even today, there is a very large 
market consisting of inside-employee programmers and consultants who 
tailor software products, write ``glue'' programs, and in 
some cases create entire custom systems to accomplish the same goal; 
i.e., make the computer work for its owner.
    37. The applications provided in the software marketplace cover 
a wide variety of needs, with some of those needs being so 
specialized that the number of units that can be distributed into 
the target market is very small. Target markets measured in 
thousands of units are common, and target markets numbered in the 
hundreds, while not common, are by no means unheard of. These 
smaller markets are important despite their size; just how many oil 
refineries or nuclear reactors do you think there are, for example, 
to which to sell specialty monitoring programs?
    38. Several government institutions have specific needs for 
computing. A number of government institutions employ and retain 
significant numbers of programmers working on projects that provide 
substantial benefits for the citizens of our country. To name just a 
few at the Federal level: NSA; NASA; IRS; the Census Bureau; NIST; 
DoD; and DoJ. These and other federal departments, bureaus and 
organizations are part of the software marketplace. One example 
shows how this sector of the marketplace has a large impact on the 
overall software market: a commercial product, the dBASE data base 
product, had as its base the ``RETRIEVE'' database system 
and the follow-on ``VULCAN'' system developed at the Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory. The release of the dBASE package by Ashton-
Tate opened a marketplace for database package on micro-computers 
that still rages today, even as Ashton-Tate is long gone from the 
software market arena.
    39. It's clear, then, that the software marketplace consists of 
a wide range of different types of entities, be they companies, 
organizations, or individuals. These entities may be classified 
using several different rules. One classification is by business 
organization: commercial enterprise, internal development 
department, co-operative, cottage enterprise, consultant, research 
organization, government, and hobbyist. Another way to classify an 
organization is by its target market: mass-market, niche market, 
custom-software market, and not-for-resale (internal use). Finally, 
the entities can be ranked by revenue or by user 
(``seat'') counts.
    40. A complete list of the players in the software marketplace 
is far broader than the list that appears to be implied by the 
description in the original Complaint and reflected in the 
definitions of Section IV of the RPFJ. In the commercial 
marketplace, you have at least (a) the commercial developers of 
operating systems, (b) the commercial mass-market applications 
providers, (c) the commercial niche-market applications providers, 
(d) the commercial developers of custom-designed and -developed 
applications, and (e) the consultant. In the noncommercial 
marketplace, you have at least (f) the corporate in-house developers 
who create corporation-specific applications, (g) the hobbyist, (h) 
the researcher (computer and non-computer), (i) the research 
organizations (again, computer and non-computer), (j) departments of 
the United States government (DOD, NIST, NASA, and others) who 
create specialized software and systems, (k) software cooperatives 
developing competing operating systems, (1) software co-operatives 
developing mass-market and niche-market applications, and (m) 
volunteers developing software for not-for-profit organizations. 
Also included in the software market are the providers of turnkey 
systems such as database systems, and embedded-computer products for 
a wide range of industries. (Your modern furnace, microwave oven, 
and your automobile all have computers, for example.)
    41. At paragraph 61, the original Complaint states ``The 
first Internet browser widely used by the general public was 
Netscape Navigator, which was introduced into the market in 
1994.'' That is inaccurate. The first web browser made 
available to the general public was ``lynx'', written by 
Lou Montulli at the University of Kansas and made available to the 
public in 1993, and ran on a large number of Unix-based computer 
systems. The University of Illinois National Center for 
Supercomputing Applications released the graphical browser 
``mosaic'' November 1993; Spyglass, Inc. resold 
``mosaic'' in the commercial market starting August 1994. 
In contrast, Netscape Navigator didn't appear as a product until 
December 1994.
    42. The original Complaint describes only a portion of the 
software marketplace as it existed in 1999 and is expected to 
continue to exist during the life of the Final Judgement.
    C. The RPFJ Fails to Meet the Public Interest Because It Does 
Not Serve the Entire Software Market
    43. As a consequence of the tunnel vision of the original 
Complaint and subsequent documents, the RPFJ as published in the 
Federal Register applies only to a portion-not the 
whole-of the software market as it existed in the year 1999.
    44. From the Finding of Fact dated November 5, 1999, comes this 
definition of ``Operating System'': ``... a software 
program that controls the allocation and use of computer resources 
(such as central processing unit time, main memory space, disk 
space, and input/output channels). The operating system also 
supports the functions of software programs, called 
``applications,'' that perform specific user-oriented 
tasks.'' (paragraph 2)
    45. From the viewpoint of a computer application and its 
author(s), an operating system is only as good as the set of 
applications programming interfaces (APIs) it provides to the 
programs running within the computer in conjunction with that 
operating system. The development of applications for a particular 
operating system is vital to the marketability of that operating 
system. The better the APIs, the better the applications, and the 
better the applications the more attractive the operating system is 
to the market. Not just ``commercial applications,'' but 
all applications.
    46. Therefore, the relevant software market that the RPFJ must 
address is the whole of all entities that write application 
software, and particularly all entities that write software for the 
Windows operating system and that interoperate over a network with 
systems running the Windows operating system.
    47. Protections against anti-competitive restraint by a monopoly 
must be extended to all sources of applications, not just some 
sources, particularly when the monopoly provider of the operating 
system also is a provider of applications, as Defendant Microsoft 
is.
    48. Of all the software market players mentioned earlier, only 
the larger and well-funded commercial developers and applications 
providers have the resources and the money-based claims of harm to 
initiate and participate in anti-trust actions against an operating 
system company using its monopoly power to control the market. Small 
commercial companies, non-software corporations, universities, most 
government departments, software cooperatives, and hobbyists don't 
have the resources (money, legal talent, and situation) to launch an 
effective action against a monopoly, and in many cases are unable to 
prove any harm inflicted by illegal activities by the monopoly 
because of the legal requirements defining ``harm''.
    49. Instead of relieving it, the RPFJ exacerbates this 
situation. Section III(D), taken in concert with the Definitions of 
the abbreviations used as defined in Section VI, clearly 
demonstrates that the only measure of participants in the software 
marketplace is by software sales revenue.
    50. Also in the RPFJ, Section III(E) incorporates by reference 
Section III(I), which permits Microsoft to avoid licensing 
government, research, and co-operative software enterprises, and 
particularly those enterprises that don't receive revenue for 
development or distribution of their software products. As a 
consequence of the ability to refuse licenses, it is a reasonable 
inference that disclosure of the APIs and Communications Protocols 
necessary to interoperate with Windows Operating Systems software 
could also be withheld.
    51. Further to the point, Section III(J)(2) can be used by 
Microsoft to block disclosure of APIs and communications protocols, 
required by any development of server software that interoperate 
with Microsoft Windows Products and provide authentication services 
to Microsoft Windows Products, by entities unable to pay the 
royalties and meet the other requirements. This specifically affects 
software co-operatives, consultants, and researchers. Not only does 
this result directly

[[Page 26571]]

in loss of choice to the consumer, but it can also slow down the 
pace of advancement of the art in the industry as a whole.
    52. By being able to lock out researchers and small developers 
from effective relief from anti-competitive actions, Microsoft is 
able to negatively affect independent research into and independent 
development of improvements in computing on the Windows platform, 
and the marketing of those improvements to the general public. This 
places an undue burden on researchers and developers, and serves as 
a limit to the market and results directly in loss of choice to the 
consumer.
    53. By being able to lock out software co-operatives, 
government, and hobbyists, Microsoft is able to artificially raise 
the cost of implementing certain classes of software product to the 
point that it is economically infeasible for products in those 
classes to be developed and deployed. This is particularly important 
given that Microsoft also sells applications as well as operating 
systems, and, by its withholding critical information on its 
monopoly product, block the offering of competitive applications. 
This restraint again results directly in loss of choice to the 
consumer.
    D. The RPFJ Lets Microsoft Continue To Discriminate Against 
Authors of Application Software and Network Systems
    54. The RPFJ is not the result of bad workmanship. Comparison of 
the RPFJ with other proposed Final Judgements that have been entered 
over the years shows that this proposal is very much like the other 
proposals in general-only the details differ. The other 
judgements examined pertained to commodities (Alcoa), consumer goods 
(Standard Oil) and integrated services (AT&T). In each of these 
cases, the cost of entry to the marketplace was substantial for all 
players, and there was no significant non-monetary component to any 
of the markets affected by the companies in question.
    55. The cost of entry into the applications software marketplace 
is very low, on the order of the cost of entering the business of 
auto repair, plumbing contracting, or door-to-door sales franchise.
    56. The cost of entry into the operating systems software 
marketplace, on the other hand, is very high because of the 
complexity of developing device drivers, resource managers, and 
applications services that attract applications programmers to 
develop software.
    57. The success of an applications program in competition with 
similar applications depends on the skill of the author. In 
particular, the author's understanding and knowledge of the 
applications program interface (API) of the operating system is 
crucial to the performance and utility of an applications program to 
its user.
    58. Suppression of information about APIs by the operating 
system vendor to an applications author, especially the hiding of 
performance-accelerating APIs, would lead directly to putting that 
author at a disadvantage to an author that is fully informed.
    59. Any discrimination by a monopoly operating system vendor 
against authors by business method, size, or exclusivity means that 
customers of software lose choice in applications software for that 
operating system.
    60. The discrimination allowed by the RPFJ against significant 
participants in the software industry leads directly to limitation 
of choice for the consumer. It's not enough that the Final Judgment 
protect large companies against the actions of Microsoft; the Final 
Judgment needs to protect all providers of applications software for 
the Windows operating system in order to provide maximum choice for 
the consumer.
    61. The problem of choice restriction is more critical when it 
comes to network products being able to interoperate with Windows 
operating systems clients. Companies have not deployed parallel 
networks for more than two decades, and are not about to do so 
now-it's too expensive for organizations to install, maintain, 
and administrate multiple networks in that manner. Therefore each 
and every node, regardless of hardware or software, needs to be able 
to function together in order to serve the needs of the customer.
    62. Discrimination against certain providers of network 
implementations means, again, reduced choice for the consumer, and 
potential network disruption when two mutually antagonistic 
implementations exist on the same network.
    63. The RPFJ lets Microsoft legally discriminate against 
participants in the marketplace, to continue to do the same actions 
against some participants in the software marketplace, actions that 
have been found to be illegal.
    64. In the Findings of Fact and in the Conclusion of Law there 
is no discussion as to the necessity of Microsoft continuing to 
discriminate against portions of the software industry in order for 
Microsoft to compete in the marketplace.
    E. The RPFJ Does Not Anticipate the Changing Software Market
    65. The software marketplace moves very, very quickly, and so 
any remedy should anticipate likely movements in the software 
market. It should also take statements made by Defendant in ensuring 
that any Final Judgment will apply to the software marketplace in 
the near future, ``near future'' defined as the expected 
life of the Final Judgement.
    66. One change taking place in the software marketplace today is 
the migration of software from an end user's computer to a network-
based synergy between the user's computer and a remote network-
connected server, with the software residing on the server. The 
paradigm of this form of software execution is different from the 
currently common ``client-server'' configuration: In 
client-server software, a software package installed on the user's 
computer is called up and executed, and as required the software 
package would exchange data with a remote server computer. In the 
new paradigm, the software is not installed onto the user's 
computer, but instead is installed on an ``application 
server'' run by an applications server provider (ASP; not to be 
confused with ``active server pages''). During the course 
of running the program, small pieces of the program are transferred 
to the RAM of the user's computer ``on demand'' and 
execute on the user's computer. When the user exits from the 
program, all traces of the program are removed from the user's 
computer.
    67. The details surrounding this trend with respect to Microsoft 
Windows on both the desktop and on the server, as embodied in its 
dot-NET XML Web services architecture, are still being developed; 
the technology is still in its infancy. Section III(F)(ii) of the 
RPFJ contains language describing a restriction that would, in a 
strict reading, permit Microsoft to avoid disclosing certain 
communications protocols between client and server operating system 
components when the server operating system implements it natively 
but the client requires that certain software be installed by the 
user, or even perhaps automatically as an ``update.''
    68. Another trend in the software marketplace is the growth of 
time-based licenses, sometimes referred to as subscriptions. In this 
model, the user subscribes to use the software for a specific period 
of time, and renews the subscription when the current one expires. 
This form of software sale is common for software that changes 
regularly; a good example is income-tax filing software.
    69. The current draft of the RPFJ does not address these known 
trends in the software market, nor how Defendant is prevented from 
using its monopoly power inappropriately to block software 
development with the Windows operating system or interoperability 
with the Windows operating system.
    70. The direct result is that consumers will be able to obtain 
software products that seamlessly interoperate with Windows 
operating systems only from Defendant and those companies that meet 
Defendant's business and success requirements. Again, the consumer 
is deprived of choice that he or she would otherwise enjoy if an 
all-inclusive Final Judgment were in place.
    F. The RPFJ Does Not Adequately Serve the Software Market's Need 
for Speedy Resolution of Complaints of Violations
    71. The enforcement provisions in Section IV of the RPFJ, along 
with the commentary in IV(B)(2) of the CIS, shows that the 
Department of Justice recognizes that the pace of software 
development is much faster than in the traditional manufacturing 
sectors, and understand the need for a procedure to permit companies 
in this fast-paced industry to obtain relief from violations without 
the delay inherent in a Court-mediated action.
    72. The RPFJ, at Section IV(D)(c), states that Microsoft will 
have 30 days to resolve or reject a complaint. As a matter of 
practice in professional software development, project schedules are 
broken down into tasks that can be completed in a small number of 
days. In multi-person projects, the tasks are highly interdependent, 
such that a delay in one task being done by one person can severely 
impact the ability of the software team to complete the project by 
the deadline-that task, and any complaint of violation 
associated with the task, quickly becomes a part of the 
``critical path'' for the project and a huge risk for the 
project as a whole.
    73. For the non-commercial and low-capitalization developer, the 
lack of any

[[Page 26572]]

avenue ï¿½or timely resolution has a more disastrous effect: 
the developer must work around the lack of information (or the 
inaccurate information, or the withheld information), must seek the 
use of another operating system (good luck!), or must give up on the 
project altogether. Many research projects have a finite amount of 
time allocated to them, and any hitch in the setting up of a project 
means the research is not completed. While there is no monetary 
harm, the non-monetary harm to the public interest can be large 
indeed-what would happen if a researcher was unable to 
complete an experiment that would provide a sure cure for cancer?
    74. The RPFJ's dispute procedure is too cumbersome for an 
industry that can produce a usable product in very short time 
intervals. As an example, Commenter has developed commercial 
software that, from initial design on a restaurant napkin to first 
installation, required 120 man-hours and was installed at a customer 
site eight days from ``go.''
    75. This unnecessary opportunity for delay is against the public 
interest by delaying product completion by smaller companies in the 
face of violations by Defendant. This takes away consumer choice 
when two companies (one large, one small) are offering competing 
applications, and the large company gets to market faster because of 
the actions of the Defendant.
    G. Proposals to Enhance Enforcement Provisions
    76. Commenter proposes that a tiered approach may be preferable, 
designed to minimize the effort on the part of the Technical 
Committee and on the part of Microsoft. Many complaints will be 
without merit due to the complainant not understanding the Final 
Judgment and not understanding the obligations Microsoft has under 
the Final Judgement. Some will be nuisance complaints, to be 
disposed of as quickly and as inexpensively as possible. Some 
complaints will be duplicates of prior complaints, so the same 
answers can be provided at a considerable savings in time to all. 
Finally, some complaints (one would hope few in number) will require 
investigation and negotiation and thus require some time and 
attention from the Technical Committee and the Microsoft Compliance 
Officer.
    77. The Technical Committee staff and the Microsoft Compliance 
Officer staff can perform triage on complaints as they are received, 
said triage being completed quickly and in no case later than 48 
hours after receipt of the complaint. In some disclosure violation 
cases, the matter can be resolved simply and quickly by staff 
recognizing (by precedent) that Microsoft needs to provide the 
information required by the Final Judgment to the complainant; this 
is particularly true of violations that are caused inadvertently, by 
clerical error, unintended withholding of information due to system 
or media failures, or obvious misunderstandings by Microsoft 
employees. In this manner, many complaints can be resolved quickly 
with a minimum of fuss and delay; done quickly, the complaint can be 
turned around in hours, not days.
    78. The same triage process can also speed the determination 
whether a particular complaint has no potential merit, weeding out 
the obvious losers very quickly and with little effort expended, and 
again eliminating delay for the complainant getting an answer to his 
problem, even if it's a negative one.
    79. Once the complaint has been passed through triage as a 
complaint with potential merit, the process is as currently 
described in the RPFJ.
    80. Commenter proposes a change in requirements for disclosure. 
One way to reduce the number of complaints filed is for the 
Microsoft Compliance Officer to be required to publish a list of 
``Frequently Asked Questions'' as part of the Web page 
described in the RPFJ Section IV(D)(3)(b), based in part on 
complaints received by the Compliance Officer and based in part by 
complaints anticipated by Microsoft. The format of the questions and 
answers is up to the Officer, and subject to review by the Technical 
Committee and by Plaintiffs for accuracy.
    H. Conclusion
    81. Any Proposed Final Judgment is a balancing act. The PFJ 
needs to reflect both the needs of the Defendant to continue to 
compete effectively in the market, while protecting the industry 
from inappropriate activity by monopoly participants.
    82. The RPFJ achieves the appropriate balance for other large 
commercial software providers.
    83. The RPFJ fails to achieve the appropriate balance when the 
rest of the software market is considered. The legal discrimination 
against software providers that do not follow the classic retail 
software model puts alternative-business-model providers, inside-
system developers, and not-for-profit developers at a significant 
disadvantage.
    84. The original Proposed Final Judgment included breaking up 
Microsoft into multiple companies along functional lines: at least 
into an operating system company and an applications program 
company. This option also fails the balance test, in that Microsoft 
would then be forced to break up its development team, significantly 
hurting each daughter company's ability to compete. More 
importantly, the break-up option also suffers from the defect that 
it would harm the industry as a whole as existing contracts would 
have to be renegotiated with haste.
    85. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment can be better balanced, 
and as an added benefit simplified, by removing all of the 
exceptions to the disclosure provisions contained in it. This lets 
all participants-from single-person programming firms to 
multi-billion dollar enterprises- enjoy protection, under the 
modified RPFJ, from inappropriate action by Microsoft. Microsoft's 
ability to compete on inventions (patents), features, timeliness of 
delivery, and integration across the product line would not be 
impaired, and therefore an appropriate balance is maintained between 
healthy competition and anti-competitive actions.



MTC-00018445

From: Ron Trenka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Ron Trenka and I am the Senior Programmer for a web 
agency. I am sending this in response to the Tunney Act's provision 
for public comments upon the Microsoft Settlement.
    About Browsers
    In regards to the argument that ``Microsoft gives its 
browser (IE) away for free. How does that hurt consumers?'', it 
is a false statement. IE has code built-in that make is ``work 
better'' with the Microsoft OS. It encourages the user to work 
on an MS platform to get the full ``user experience''. It 
also is not free.. not by a long shot. While the consumer doesn't 
pay for the browser, the providers do. When I started out at the 
beginning of the DotCom craze, nearly all the machines serving web 
pages were Unix/Linux based. Now, nearly all the machines are 
Microsoft NT based. Why? Its not a price issue. The hardware costs 
run about the same. Its not the price of software. Webserver 
software for both Unix and NT are both free (for Unix Apache is the 
most popular, while IIS is included in the NT platform). It is 
because the NT platform includes proprietary software that makes IE 
display pages better and faster.
    So Microsoft's dominance expanded into the server market largely 
by their inclusion of ``free'' software on the consumer 
platform. Free for the consumer, perhaps, but not for the 
businesses.
    Microsoft also has been guilty of their ``Embrace and 
Extend'' policy of various software standards, taking open 
standards and corrupting them into Microsoft-only standards. Java is 
the most visible of this (and the basis for Microsoft losing the Sun 
vs. Microsoft lawsuit, for which Microsoft has excluded Java from 
their OS, effectively killing it), but others exist. As a programmer 
for the web, I deal with this every day. We must have machines with 
all versions of Windows and IE, in addition to the other browsers to 
insure that our clients all see the same things. The cost for this 
testing must be passed on to our clients. Microsoft continues to 
receive criticism from the W3C for lack of following the published 
standards.
    The Department of Justice has proposed a settlement that does 
not address any of these issues. It does not prevent Microsoft from 
adding more proprietary ``features'' into nor does it stop 
MS from tying it more tightly to Windows. Nor does it prevent MS 
from tying other software packages to their OS. It does not prevent 
MS, for example, making their Office Suite of software part of the 
OS, effectively locking out other word processors & spreadsheets 
from Windows (why pay for it when it is ``free''?).
    The only really effective way of preventing this is to come up 
with a definition of an OS and force Microsoft to remove IE from the 
OS and include it as a separate piece of software that can be 
installed and removed at the user's choice. There is no reason why 
they can't continue to include the software with their Windows OS, 
but they must allow computer vendors to include other browsers (such 
as Mozilla or Opera). They must also acknowledge that it is software 
and not part of Windows (or any OS), treat it accordingly and 
prevent tying in the future.
    About Security

[[Page 26573]]

    Over a billion dollars last year was spent to fix security holes 
in computers running Microsoft's OS. A billion dollars. Microsoft's 
response? ``We'll get it right next time.'' No liability 
for their obvious (and admitted) repeated mistakes (the same 
security hole that was in 95 was released in 98, then 2000 and now 
in XP..). No recourse for businesses but to hire large IT staffs to 
keep up with the numerous patches and hot fixes that Microsoft 
continuously releases. And yet people with Windows are still 
constantly victims of virus attacks. Microsoft needs to be held 
liable for these lapses that the world is constantly paying for. The 
DOJ settlement proposal addresses none of this.
    About Innovation
    As found in the Finding of Facts, Microsoft has constantly been 
an opponent of innovation, contrary to their self-proclamations. If 
someone comes out with a software or idea that threatens Microsoft's 
``vision of the world'', they browbeat, threaten, purchase 
or ``embrace and extend'' the idea out of existence. Look 
at WebTV. A couple of years ago, they were an up and coming company 
allowing consumers to browse the web on their TV set without the 
need for a computer. Microsoft purchased them and now where are 
they? Another threat gone. The DOJ Settlement does not address this. 
Other companies cannot compete with Microsoft as they do not have 
access to the Windows APIs. The DOJ Settlement touches on this, 
however the loopholes are so large as to be able to drive a truck 
through. All Microsoft need to do is claim a ``security 
concern'' and they can refuse to divulge the API. Given Mr. 
Gates recent memo to Microsoft employee to make security their 
#1 priority, I view this loophole with a great amount of 
suspicion.
    In Conclusion
    In general, the DOJ's settlement doesn't address any of the 
things that Microsoft was found in violation of; releases Microsoft 
from liabilities for their actions; and does nothing to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing those same actions in the future. I urge 
you to reject the settlement in favor of something more stringent.
    Thank you for your time;
    Ron Trenka
    Technical Director
    Zowie Digital Media
    * www.zowiedigital.com
    * [email protected]
    * (212) 627-4991 x22



MTC-00018446

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I truly believe that the language of the settlement is riddled 
with exclusions and exceptions that renders all state setlement 
intents null. I agree with my state, the commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, in its decision to not settle.
    Stefano Santoro
    Messaging Architect
    Nokia Mobile Products/Application Gateways
    5 Wayside Rd
    Burlington, MA 01803
    Home Address:
    510 Dale St
    North Andover, MA 01845



MTC-00018447

From: Brent Fulgham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to express my strong disagreement with the terms of 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. I have watched this story (in its 
various iterations) for the last several years, and have become 
increasingly concerned with the power Microsoft holds over the 
computer industry, and the lack of oversight or meaningful controls 
placed on them.
    The main problem with the settlement is that is so narrowly 
crafted with respect to the meaning of API's, middleware, and other 
terms, that it is effectively meaningless. To craft legislation that 
requries Microsoft to allow a competing Java middleware layer, when 
Microsoft has advertised its intention to move everything to 
``.NET'' is a good example of the poor thought that went 
into this document. This would be analogous to a car company 
agreeing that ``all cars must permit the 9-track tape player to 
be replaced with a competing 9-track tape player'', when the 
company is already shipping vehicles with cassette tape players.
    In short, the current settlement is fatally flawed in its intent 
to regulate Microsoft's behavior with respect to system integrators, 
software developers, and end-users. Please revise this document to 
strengthen the protections.
    Best regards,
    Brent Fulgham
    3737 Paloma Drive
    Ventura, CA 93003



MTC-00018448

From: James Douma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is inadequate. It does not deny 
Microsoft the fruits of their past misdeeds. It does not contain 
restrictions on their future actions sufficient to encourage 
Microsoft not to repeat their misdeeds.
    Darin James Douma
    41 Hidden Valley Rd
    Monrovia, CA 91016



MTC-00018449

From: Tom Eisenman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:13pm
Subject: comment on proposed final judgement
    As a professional programmer, I would like to comment on the 
proposed final judgement in the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit. Over 
the past ten years or so, Microsoft has used its monopoly in the 
operating systems market to lock out competition in business 
software and programmers software. It wasn't so long ago that Lotus 
sold the leading spreadsheet, Borland sold the leading programming 
language software, Word Perfect had the best selling word processor, 
Netscape had the biggest market share in Web browsers, dBase sold 
the most spreadsheets, Qualcomm Eudora was the most popular email, 
and so on. How did Microsoft effectively eliminate all of these 
competitors, all of whom had seemingly insurmountable head starts? 
They have done this by a variety of anti-competitive practices that 
have now been judged to be illegal. It has taken years for the 
judicial system to reach this conclusion and all during this time 
Microsoft has continued to exploit its monopoly position. Now the 
proposed final judgement fails to split Microsoft's operating system 
and applications businesses. The company will surely find ways to 
evade the letter of any restrictions placed on it while continuing 
to monopolize all aspects of the computer business. The proposed 
final judgement is too soft on Microsoft.
    Tom Eisenman
    Applications Analyst
    Student Information Systems
    Office of Information technologies
    A253 Lederle GRC
    University of Massachusetts Amherst
    740 North Pleasant Street
    Amherst, MA 01003-9306
    phone: (413) 577-3036



MTC-00018450

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir or madam:
    I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement. I am a computer 
programmer, and have been one since 1983. During that time I have 
seen Microsoft abuse its OS monopoly in several different fields, 
including browser software.
    Thank you for your time,
    Stephen Cleary
    System Software Engineer
    Control Engineering Company
    [email protected]



MTC-00018451

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public comment to the Court regarding whether the settlement 
offered by Administration and some states is in the public interest 
:
-I am totally disinterested in the case except as a consumer 
using personal computers at home and work.
-I am not a lawyer, do not work for Microsoft or any of its 
competitors, do not make decisions about operating system purchases 
where I work (Philips Semiconductor Division), and have no 
predisposition about anti-trust laws .
-I believe the entire effort to prosecute Microsoft in the 
name of supposedly injured consumers was unjustified and 
destructive. As a consumer, I was never injured and the prospect of 
being injured

[[Page 26574]]

in the future is nil, based on the extraordinarily innovative 
software industry in the US and abroad.
-As a user/consumer during the entire period August 1981 to 
today, I experienced the ``bad old days'' of incompatible 
operating systems and wildly proliferating applications programs. So 
the standardization resulting from Microsoft's success came as a 
godsend to me personally and all my colleagues at work.
-Any impartial financial analysis of the costs saved and new 
business transactions facilitated in the US economy and the world by 
this standardization would be colossal. Everyone is in their debt. 
Microsoft's huge revenue and earnings are essentially compensation 
for this vast benefit , not the ill-gotten gains their competitors 
claim.
-The parties who orchestrated the entire mistaken prosecution 
were the competitors.
    Therefore I oppose any attempt to make the Settlement terms 
harsher. The worst result would be a breakup of the company or 
restriction on Microsoft's freedom to integrate whatever software 
they think they can sell me. I will judge for myself whether I want 
to buy and use their integrated products.
    Donald S. Remsen
    20 Kirby Place
    Palo Alto, California
    (650)-326-8928



MTC-00018452

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern with the proposed settlement 
terms in the Microsoft antitrust case. I have been involved in 
computer technical support and programming for a number of years 
now, mainly on computers running Windows operating systems.
    One of my particular concerns is the fact that Microsoft will 
not be required to disclose key information about its widely-used 
Microsoft Office file formats and other proprietary file formats. 
These formats are so widely used in the US business and academic 
community that they form an important part of the Applications 
Barrier to Entry (see Findings of Fact 20 and 39). The process of 
building competing applications-or even applications designed 
to interface seamlessly with Microsoft Office 
software!-becomes very difficult if these common formats can 
not be supported, both for reading and writing.
    In general there is no reason for these formats to be 
proprietary except for the express purpose of raising the 
Applications Barrier to Entry! A classic Word document, for example, 
is equivalent to a particular sequence of formatted characters; in 
many cases (in the absence of Word macros or other application-
specific information) it can be mimicked exactly by a Rich Text 
Format document.
    However, if Word crashes or there is a write error on a hard 
drive changing just a few bytes of a Word file, it is often very 
difficult to recover even a fraction of the original text and 
formatting-which can mean a loss to the user of hours or days 
of work, even though the file is almost completely intact (only a 
few bytes altered). This problem is basically due to the fact that 
Word format is obfuscated-it works correctly only when 
everything is exactly right.
    This may not be a deliberate design decision on the part of 
Microsoft, but in general Word will not read a Word file correctly 
if there is anything ``suspicious'' about the format. This 
is exactly what is needed to raise the Applications Barrier to 
Entry, given that the file format is not published; it would be very 
difficult to write an application that could read and write Word 
format flawlessly, without access to Word file format information.
    Similar arguments apply to requiring Microsoft to publish 
-all- relevant information about Windows API functions 
that developers might need, either to interface with the Windows 
operating system or to produce other operating systems that run 
software written for Windows. The Applications Barrier to Entry is 
unnecessarily raised by withholding this type of information. Making 
this information available must be part of any appropriate 
settlement of the Microsoft case.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Dave Greene
    Albany, NY



MTC-00018453

From: lorraine snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:14pm
Subject: I believe the Justice Department needs to settle the 
Microsoft lawsuit, now.
    I believe the Justice Department needs to settle the Microsoft 
lawsuit, now. This company has been grossly mistreated in this whole 
case. I am a consumer and I and none of the customers have been 
injured by Microsoft. There are MANY software companies that charge 
$395- $895 for their software. I do not see them (pagemaker/
Photoshop/Adobe products EVER criticized or brought to the Justice 
department for THEIR charges! I feel the American people have been 
fed a lot of untruths and I think it is time the Justice Department 
stands-up and stops this unfair treatment for an American Company 
that is out there in the forefront GIVING LIBRARY'S, SCHOOLS and 
many people the opportunity to learn how to access information on 
the computers. PLEASE DO NOT JUDGE THEIR MOTIVE FOR DOING GOOD TO 
THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY. I WANT THEM TO DONATE COMPUTERS AND 
SOFTWARE TO SCHOOLS!!! You do not see APPLE, giving away THEIR 
PROFIT to schools and library's!! Please close this case and HINDER 
MORE WASTE OF TAXPAYERS WITH MORE WRONGFUL LAWSUITS like Microsoft's 
``rival'' Netscape and the MONOPOLY KING of the Century, 
AMERICA ON-LINE! Here they filed a lawsuit to keep this unjust 
treatment going! Please close the door to this grossly unfair 
treatment!
    Lorraine Snyder
    15018 SE Fairwood Blvd.
    Renton, Wa 98058



MTC-00018454

From: Warner Young
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a private citizen, I feel the proposed Microsoft settlement 
is a very bad idea.
    Starting when I used to work in a small company doing DOS-based 
local area network software, to now when I work in a graphics-
related company, I've seen various signs of Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. These are things I've seen myself, not things 
mentioned in the news. These are specific pieces of code which had 
no purpose in and of themselves other than to make life difficult 
for competitors. The proposed settlement will do nothing to make 
Microsoft more competitive. At most, I feel it will be equivalent to 
a slap on the wrist. At the very least, there needs to be stricter, 
more enforceable punishments for cases where Microsoft steps out of 
line.
    Sincerely,
    Warner Young



MTC-00018455

From: Mark Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement does not provide enough 
remedy to the situation created by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior. I would like to register my dissatisfaction with this 
settlement.
    Mark Parker
    Salt Lake City, UT



MTC-00018456

From: mel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the settlement with Microsoft troubling in many ways, for 
instance section III.A.2 seems specifically to allow the 
continuation of one of the worst of MS's practises. However rather 
than criticise the many legal points I suggest that a fine solution 
could come in the the terms and conditions of the remedy.
    Microsoft atoning for past misdeeds by insinuating even more of 
their software into key positions such as schools and public service 
institutions is mind boggling. Why not require Microsoft to purchase 
hardware for these institutions, with open source operating systems 
and software instead? Perfectly viable alternatives (superior in our 
view) exist.



MTC-00018457

From: Michael Slass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to urge you to reject the proposed settlement of 
the anti-trust suit against Microsoft Corporation. The proposed 
settlement:

[[Page 26575]]

    (1) would not prevent the central ways Microsoft was found to 
have illegally maintained its Windows monopoly,
    (2) does nothing to restore competition in the OS market, an 
express Court of Appeals requirement for a Microsoft remedy,
    (3) has no provisions directed to Windows XP and other new 
endeavors of Micro-oft to extend and protect its monopoly to new 
markets in the future, another express Court of Appeals requirement 
for a Microsoft remedy,
    (4) contains no provision for any punitive damages against a 
firm which has been found to have illegally abused it's monopoly 
power, and
    (5) provides for an oversight body with so little real power to 
restrict Microsoft's future behavior, or to react to future 
trangressions, as to be essentially useless.
    Thank you.
    Michael Slass
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00018458

From: Pitre, David
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am sorry to see the settlement that is being discussed at this 
time. I personally wished that there would be no settlement for 
Microsoft and that they would be subject to the judgement of the 
courts and their own folly. I have read the settlement and a fair 
number of essays on the matter. Something nags at me every time I 
read through sections of them. The settlement does not seem to 
hinder Microsoft in any way that it was before the trial.
    Forgive me if my writing seems to be lacking in an understanding 
of legal issues. But, many of the terms used in this settlement seem 
to be either lacking a true definition or are only partial in their 
description of the issues. As pointed out, I'm sure, by 
professionals with much more experience than I, it would be quite 
easy for Microsoft to circumvent the restrictions made in this 
settlement. I have complete faith in Microsoft to try it and I 
honestly believe that Microsoft will end many of the disputes over 
this document repeatedly in a courtroom.
    Here is a link to one such essay by Dan Kegel: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html I'm sure the author has already 
submitted this essay to you. He says it far better, and with many 
years more experience than I could. It's been eight years since I 
first started working with computers professionally. Every year 
there seems to be less professionals who aren't cornered by 
Microsoft products or are left with Microsoft as the only choice in 
a field of products.
    Sincerely,
    David Pitre
    Senior Application Developer
    Idea Integration
    Houston, TX



MTC-00018459

From: David C. Spaeth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I want to respond to the settlement solutions I've read about in 
the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    I have an observation to make-the most simple solution to 
the case would release the consumer from the affects of the monopoly 
as well as level the playing field for competition.
    Simply require Microsoft to publish the full specification of 
their software data file formats prior to release. The software data 
formats-when a consumer creates a document and saves 
it-should be owned by the consumer. An open format would 
ensure that ``upgrades-for-the-purpose-of-revenue-
generation'' would cease to require the consumer to upgrade 
applications because of compatability and allow the software 
publishers to position their products against Microsoft 
effectively-the software publisher who truly creates a better 
mouse-trap would get the sale.
    If this isn't done, the monopoly will continue.
    Thank you for your time.
    David C Spaeth
    Hazelwood, MO



MTC-00018460

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am extremely disappointed by the DOJ's proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. The settlement is without teeth; it does almost 
nothing to prevent Microsoft from engaging in further illegal 
activities. I recommend you to Dan Kegel's open letter detailing the 
deficiencies of the settlement (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html). I cannot support a settlement which does not, at the 
very least, document ALL of the Microsoft APIs for use by OEMs; 
=that= would spark =real= competition. And is it too much to ask for 
some language that speaks to penalties that would be suffered by 
Microsoft should it fail to abide by the settlement? Meaningful, 
billion-dollar penalties?
    Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Tracy Boland
    12435 Milton St.
    Los Angeles, CA 90066



MTC-00018461

From: Sean Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is flawed, and fails to 
provide a solution to the fundamental problem of Microsoft's 
monopoly. The settlement will, in no way, remedy the situation, or 
affect the status of Microsoft's monopoly. As a result, I am opposed 
to the settlement, and call for more severe restrictions, and more 
reliable oversight, on Microsoft.
    Sean Russell
    Bend, OR



MTC-00018462

From: Ed Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Department of Justice
    I want to express my opposition to the Microsoft settlement. I 
don't not believe it goes nearly far enough to adequately address 
the harm Microsoft has done to the technology industry. Their 
complete dominance of the sector, and their practices aimed at 
eliminating any and all competitors. I support AOL/Time Warner in 
their efforts to seek redress for the monopoly Microsoft attempted 
to create in the web browser market, and I see nothing from 
Microsoft to convince me that they will not continue on its apparent 
course of complete world domination of the software/operating system 
industry. Please do not let Microsoft off the hook so easily.
    Ed Edwards
    Bloomsburg, PA



MTC-00018463

From: Mieusset, Jean L.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial 
is not adequate, and I would like to voice my opposition. The 
proposed settlement does not fully address Microsoft's past actions, 
and fails to set limits to future abuses. For example, according to 
the terms of the settlement, Microsoft Corporation is
- not prohibited for creating incompatibilities within its 
application programs, a definite loss for the consumer.
- not prevented from pressurizing OEM vendors to ship systems with 
Microsoft operating systems or system software components only.
- allowed to replace of Java with .NET, itself not being replaceable 
within the system.
    It is also unclear what the enforcement of the settlement terms, 
as written, will be. The proposed Microsoft settlement is, in my 
opinion, not adequate, and should be revised to curb some of this 
anticompetitive behavior, harmful to the consuming public.
    Sincerely,
    J. L Mieusset
    80 Lawton Road
    Needham, MA.



MTC-00018464

From: Chris Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is unsuitable
    To whom it may concern,
    After having read and considered Scott Rosenberg's Salon 
article, I find myself forced to agree that his points are valid. I 
have been apalled at the manner in which Microsoft has been allowed 
to twist the spirit of the mandates set before it and constantly 
thumb its nose at authority like a five-year-

[[Page 26576]]

old making faces at its mother behind her back. If Microsoft is 
truly guilty, of which I believe there's no question now, then 
amends must be made by them for their years of unlawful conduct. I 
do not believe the settlement as it stands has the power to 
adequately enforce that, and I would strongly encourage any who 
would listen to ensure that the future Microsoft will neither regard 
this as a simple ``slap on the wrist'' nor be able to 
repeat its horrible offenses.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Meyer



MTC-00018465

From: Seth Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Seth Price
    7402 Longmeadow
    Madison, WI 53717
    [email protected]



MTC-00018466

From: Cox, Aaron
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea. The main concern is fair 
competition. The only way to allow fair competition is to force open 
standards and force them to abide by these published standards.



MTC-00018467

From: Kathy A. Graff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned that the proposed settlement is not strong enough 
to discourage Microsoft's anticompetitive practices, in particular 
the threat to open source software. I have been earning my 
livelihood as a Perl programmer for several years. I used 
Microsoft's BASIC and QuickBASIC in the early 1990's because it was 
cross-platform, but lost clients and income when Microsoft 
discontinued support for the Macintosh version.
    Businesses and ``just plain folks'' are afraid to use 
anything other than Microsoft products because of the perception 
that Microsoft is a monopoly, nothing can change that status, and 
they will be hurt if they don't plan along. This is despite higher 
support costs for Microsoft products. None of this is good for 
business in general let alone the software or operating system 
industries.
    Kathy A. Graff
    823 North 2nd Street Suite 214
    Milwaukee WI 53203



MTC-00018468

From: Tad Hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement doesn't solve the problem.



MTC-00018469

From: Sanjay Linganna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    From my understanding of the Proposed Final Judgement of the 
Microsoft case, it is not mandatory for Microsoft to ``open-
up'' their file formats. I cannot afford to purchase Microsoft 
Office ($480) so my ability to communicate and share information is 
limited, especially when communicating with the corporate word 
(sending resumes, etc).
    Thanks for your time,
    Sanjay Linganna



MTC-00018470

From: Josh Glover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    My name is Josh Glover, and I am a Computer Science student at 
The College of William and Mary in Virginia. I feel strongly that 
Microsoft, in its current incarnation, is bad for the computer 
industry, higher education, and technology in general. The strongarm 
tactics of the Microsoft Corporation have kept advancements in 
technology from becoming available to the public, and made the 
simple act of trying to run a network or write a webpage a 
nightmare.
    What I mean by this is, Microsoft's implementations of many of 
the RFC-based standards have been decidedly non-standard. In the 
``best case'', they add extensions that people come to 
depend on, thus making the standards seem inferior. This would not 
be such a bad thing (one could argue that it is technological 
Darwinism), except for Microsoft's apparent disdain of many 
standards-making bodies. In the worst cases (and MIT's Kerberos 
Project leaps to mind), Microsoft's implementations of standard 
protocols are ``incompatible'' with the actual standards, 
effectively disallowing standards-based communication. The Internet 
is only possible through a set of standard protocols, and if 
Microsoft is allowed to continue in its current behaviour, it could 
actually gain control of the Internet itself.
    Microsoft hurts the consumer in the same way, by effectively 
taking away the choice of the consumer. When I recently bought a 
laptop computer from Dell, I was forced to pay several hundred 
dollars for bundled Microsoft software (the operating system and the 
Works ``productivity'' software) that I did not want and 
have never removed from the shrink-wrap. Even worse, I cannot 
legally sell this software to anyone else, due to licensing. This 
type of ``Microsoft tax'' alone should make it obvious 
that Microsoft is a monopoly.
    Also, Microsoft's goals are to strengthen its monopoly, not to 
provide a service. In a free market, the best products should 
theoretically win. But when a giant company controls a sector of the 
market and is actively branching out, as in Microsoft's case, good 
products are stifled and the consumer loses. In the very specific 
case of the software market, Microsoft's refusal to 
``care'' about bugs and deficiencies in their software 
because they are too busy trying to increase their control over the 
wallets of the world. This wastes millions of hours of time for 
people all over the world who want working, quality software. Now, 
the biggest problem with the proposed settlement is that Microsoft 
would be donating computers ``RUNNING THE WINDOWS OPERATING 
SYSTEM'' to education. This is not a punishment! This is like a 
``loss leader'' marketing strategy. This is how Microsoft 
got to where they are today. So-called charity is not the answer. If 
Microsoft is fined a dollar amount, they should have to pay 
``IN CASH''! This is only fair to the taxpayers all over 
the US who have been harmed by Microsoft's anti-competative 
practises.
    Thank you,
    Joshua M. Glover
    CC:Dick Prosl,R. O'Neil,[email protected]@inetgw,Paul 
Sou...



MTC-00018471

From: billie44
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Justice Department:
    The immeasurably-beneficial world of the computer and its 
infinite potential for saving this wondrous planet is too precious 
to be left to Microsoft-as well-intentioned as the latter may 
plead.
    The sheer, growing monopolistic aspect of Microsoft must be 
mightily and profoundly curbed-forced if necessary to allow 
the free and nurtured ``competition``-for lack of a 
better phrase-of other minds and souls to flourish.
    With all conviction and sincerity,
    Bill Bryan, Paso Robles, California



MTC-00018472

From: David Bezold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opinion that the present DOJ 
settlement with Microsoft does not go far enough to prevent 
Microsoft's Monopolistic business practices.
    I have spent my entire career (25 years) as an embedded software 
developer. I was writing software before the MacIntosh, before 
Microsoft, and before SUN. I have watched the development of the 
software engineering discipline-a discipline devoted to 
``engineering'' software. Remember, an engineer is someone 
who is ``skilled in the principles and practice of any branch 
of engineering'' (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 
(1913)).
    A professional engineer must have the skill to produce reliable, 
working designs. If they do not, they are not allowed to practice 
their craft. If a civil engineer consistently designs bridges that 
fail, that engineer will lose his/her clients to another civil 
engineer (and will likely be sued)? If an embedded software engineer 
writes software that controls a television, and that software 
contains bugs

[[Page 26577]]

that causes the television to consistently fail to operate, the 
engineer will likely loose his/her job?
    The world's largest software company consistently produces 
software that makes computers crash and misbehave. Yet this company 
maintains some of the largest profit margins and growth anywhere in 
the world economy? Why is that? That company is a monopoly. There is 
no competitor who will profit from Microsoft's poor engineering.
    The current DOJ settlement does not go far enough to solve this 
problem. It must take actions to make it possible for real 
competitors to Microsoft to come into the marketplace. Competition 
is what spurs innovation in our economy. As long as there is no 
competition in the PC operating system marketplace, we will continue 
to have computers that crash and misbehave, to the detriment of all 
consumers.
    David Bezold
    [email protected]
    phone:425.743.4269



MTC-00018473

From: Brian Finn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Good People at the Department of Justice,
    I am writing to you today to express my dismay at one of the 
remedies discussed in the proposed settlement for Microsoft's 
anticompetitive actions. This remedy states that Microsoft will not 
be allowed to retaliate against Original Equipment Manufacturers 
(OEMs) who sell PCs that can run either Windows or another operating 
system. This, in effect, forces OEMs to sell Windows to their 
customers, whether they want it or not. In the past, an OEM customer 
who wanted a prebuilt computer to run Linux (or FreeBSD, or any 
other non-Microsoft operating system) had to buy a Windows PC, 
delete Windows, and then install the new operating system. This has 
been half-seriously referred to as the ``Windows Tax''. 
With the remedy in place, the customer does not have to install the 
new operating system, but still must pay for and delete Windows from 
the PC. The ``Windows Tax'' is still in place! The 
language of the agreement should be changed so that OEMs cannot be 
punished by Microsoft for selling PCs that only use a non-Microsoft 
operating system.
    Thanks,
    Brian Finn
    Network Administrator
    NACM Southwest
    1915 Westridge Drive
    Irving, Texas 75038
    voice 972-518-0019
    fax 972-580-9089
    [email protected]



MTC-00018474

From: drey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my personal recommendation that the United States does NOT 
settle its antitrust case against Microsoft. Doing so would allow 
Microsoft to further bend computer users over and practically 
convince users to handcuff their wrists to their ankles.
    David Stair



MTC-00018475

From: Phyllis Korb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the words of Todd Beamer: Let's roll! Let's get on with life. 
Settle the case. What an utter waste of money to continue to drag 
this on in court. Let Microsoft do what they do best. If the 
competition can't keep up, maybe they need to try harder!
    Phyllis Korb



MTC-00018476

From: mattc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the Microsoft settlement that is 
currently being concidered. It calls into question why we should be 
proud to call ourselves Americans when the legal system can be 
bought and manipulated by one powerfull company.
    This settlement forces me to unwillingly surrender my rights to 
a fair and arbitrary legal system. I am ashamed of it. 
Spcecifically, I am opposed to the ammount of control that Microsoft 
has in administering the terms of the agreement. Too many grey areas 
and judgement calls are left wide open as potential loopholes. They 
have been found guilty in a court of law, and shouldn't be their own 
guard. More importanly, I am opposed to the gag order of the 3 
person oversight committee. Without a voice, there is no way that 
the can do their job effectivly. Finally, I am opposed to the 
shortsightedness of this agreement. It does nothing to curb 
Microsofts illegal use of its Monopoly on the desktop to corner 
other markets. Innovation is stifled, and Americans loose. I 
respectfully urge you to throw out the proposed agreement, and see 
that true justice is done.
    With respect,
    Matthew J. Clark
    Portland, OR



MTC-00018477

From: Peter A. Peterson II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Peter A. Peterson II, and I work as a system 
administrator and technician in the Chicagoland area, and I want to 
register my displeasure with the Microsoft Settlement. To anyone in 
the industry, it is clear that Microsoft calls the shots, especially 
in the consumer market, and more and more in the server and 
production market, and even now with their entrance into the home 
market through things like the Xbox and their new initiatives into 
creating ``standards'' (i.e. corporately controlled, 
revenue-generating systems) like the .NET initiative, as well as the 
near-total universality of the Internet Explorer 
browser-Microsoft is and has a monopoly on some of the most 
vital portions of the information economy.
    If this monopoly is to be regulated, then real, effectual 
penalties MUST be effected on the company. I don't hate 
Microsoft-a lot of their products are very good, and to a 
certain extent, they have gotten to where they have because of the 
quality of their products. But good products, or at least better 
products have become only products, where competitors cannot afford 
to actually be competitive with Microsoft.
    And this says nothing of their draconian business practices in 
many realms. Even now Microsoft is crafting their proposals and 
plans to grow even larger and more powerful than they already 
are-what kind of control over the information industry are 
they going to be given? No, the penalties against Microsoft must 
have meaningful significance. I don't know enough to say what that 
would be, nor am I necessarily supporting the idea of dividing the 
company-but in doing so, there is a clear, definite punishment 
and regulations to enforce the interactions between the companies. 
But with simple fines and reparations made, we only force microsoft 
to give back a small portion of the money that they have extorted 
from businesses, consumers, and other industry players, and their 
business practices will continue. Please consider an alternative 
punishment for Microsoft.
    Yours,
    Peter



MTC-00018478

From: Voll, Jim
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm shocked at the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The only 
thing missing from this sham is a complete apology from the 
goverment. Microsoft is quilty. Remember? What is God's name does 
this proposed settlement do to correct Microsofts behavior? Have you 
not followed the previous court order corrections to Microsoft 
behaviors and witnessed how ``effective'' they were?



MTC-00018479

From: Georg Lange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madams & Sirs,
    The proposed settlement is bad idea.
    Best regards,
    Georg
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00018480

From: Thomas C Bourgeois
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may Concern:
    I am the Assistant Director for Curriculum and Registration at 
the University of Arizona. Among my job duties is the charge to 
automate paper-driven processes or make those processes which are 
automated more efficient. Throughout my tenure I have relied on the 
ubiquitous presence of the personal computer to succeed at this 
charge, and because I work at a publicly funded university, 
budgetary concerns are of paramount importance in the solutions 
which I pursue. Because many of the institution's administrative 
computing

[[Page 26578]]

resources (PCs) have Microsoft software on them when they arrive 
from the manufacturer, I have been a frequent user of Microsoft 
products. However, I have also taken full advantage of other 
vendors'' products when they have provided an appropriate 
balance of value and cost. In fact many of my most successful 
projects have benefited from using some very high quality, non-
Microsoft software which is available at no cost to the user. I have 
followed the Microsoft antitrust case with some concern, especially 
because the Department of Justice has chosen not to break up the 
corporation for its anticompetitive practices. What I fear most from 
the result of this decision is that it will ultimately compromise my 
ability to do my job, because it has the very real potential to 
severely constrain the availability and quality of free software 
available for the personal computer.
    Microsoft operating system products, browser products, and other 
software products are very successful because they are tightly 
integrated; that is, they work well with each other. However, over 
the years I have observed that these same products have tended not 
to work so well with other, non-Microsoft products. Performance 
lags, crashes, and constrained functionality are all symptoms of the 
interaction of Microsoft products with those developed by another 
vendor. In fact the dark side of this integration is evident in the 
recent virus attacks. Many of these attacks exploit the high degree 
of interoperability of Microsoft products to destroy systems and 
propagate this destruction to other computers.
    I am a layman and cannot begin to understand the intricate 
details of why this might be so, but it is reasonable to conclude 
that such integration is only possible because developers of various 
Microsoft products communicate heavily with each other, and make 
design changes to accommodate these various products under a unified 
corporate strategy.
    As Microsoft has grown as a company, its survival has depended 
less and less on interoperability with the products of other 
vendors. Breaking up the company would have required that 
communication vital to interoperability be by necessity more open. 
However, because Microsoft will continue to develop its various 
products under a single corporate identity it is critical that they 
be required to communicate to other vendors in the industry any 
design criteria which will impinge on the relative interoperability 
of a non-Microsoft product with a Microsoft product.
    Providing the industry with a level developmental playing field, 
as conceived through interoperability of Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
products, is the only possible hope of eliminating Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices. It is certainly not in the company's best 
interests to do this, and therefore it will be critical that such 
interoperability be required and enforced by any solution 
implemented by the Department of Justice.
    As it stands, I fear that the proposed settlement falls short of 
providing for this level developmental playing field. The devil is 
in the details, as they say, and from my understanding the scope of 
the proposed settlement is too narrow to prevent Microsoft from 
using its inherent internal communication to its own advantage and 
to the disadvantage of those vendors who want to develop products to 
compete with, yet still function with, Microsoft products.
    The settlement between the Department of Justice and the 
Microsoft corporation can only truly benefit consumers to the extent 
that it adequately supports the letter and spirit of free enterprise 
between Microsoft and its competitors, and this is only possible to 
the extent that Microsoft be strictly prohibited from using its 
market share advantage and internal communication opportunities to 
undermine the interoperability of other products with Microsoft 
products. It is my sincere hope that the Department of Justice 
further revises its proposed settlement to ensure the success of 
such prohibitions.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas C. Bourgeois, Ph. D.
    Assistant Director, Curriculum and Registration
    The University of Arizona



MTC-00018481

From: Pete Cervasio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:09pm
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 add my comments on the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. I believe that the 
proposed final judgement (PFJ) is flawed, and fully agree with the 
problems seen in it by Dan Kegel (found at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html). Microsoft has been found guilty of a crime and 
as a result, they should be punished. They also should make 
reparations to those injured by their criminal actions. 
Unfortunately, the PFJ does not fully redress those actions that 
have been committed by Microsoft in the past, nor does it inhibit 
their ability to commit further acts in the future.
    Because of Microsoft's business practices, hundreds (if not 
thousands) of small businesses have ceased to exist. Where are the 
provisions for reparation? The PFJ does ``nothing'' to 
correct Microsoft's illegal actions. It only prohibits the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as 
their only ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot 
commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their 
illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their 
abuses and not for the American people in general.
    We do not smack the hands of bank robbers, murderers or rapists 
and tell them ``don't do that any more''. In this case, 
Microsoft isn't even getting their hands slapped! While it would 
likely be impossible to find all the people and companies who were 
forced out of business by Microsoft's illegal monopoly, making 
reparations to those hurt by Microsoft impossible also, Microsoft 
should be penalized for breaking the anti-trust law. The PFJ does 
not do that.
    The Court's desire that a settlement be reached quickly is a 
good intention, but it is wrong to reach a settlement just for the 
sake of reaching one.
    Sincerely,
    Pete Cervasio
    7013 Newcastle Place
    North Richland Hills, TX 76180



MTC-00018482

From: Aaron Swartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is shameful in its omissions, 
loopholes and simple ignorance of the importance of this case. It 
doesn't do anything to punish Microsoft for their illegal behavior 
(of which they have been convicted!) nor does it do much stop them 
from monopolizing other markets in the future.
    The only thing it does do is to essentially prevent them from 
taking over the markets they've already taken over, and its 
loopholes and poor definitions do a poor job of even that.
    Microsoft cannot be let off this easily, or it will continue to 
prevent innovation and competition in our computer industry. This is 
the government's chance to restore freedom to software developers 
and it is essential to do it right. Otherwise we will only prolong 
the sad track record of nearly zero major improvements in the field. 
There are more details in this assessment of the proposed remedy: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Humbly,
    Aaron Swartz
    
    



MTC-00018483

From: Bill OConnor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Below is a copy of a letter written by Ralph Nader concerning 
the MS anti-trust case. I'm sending a copy if it to you because it 
reflects my sentiments about the case. I have experienced first hand 
Microsoft's virtual blackmail of software developers and feel that 
it is definitely not in the consumers best interest to perpetuate 
the current state of affairs.
    An analogy might be to think of the operating system as being 
much the same as the carrier standard for television. Suppose that 
CBS or NBC owned the NTSC Standard. How many competing televisions 
stations would we have today? ONE! The operating system provides the 
basis from which all the other software is built. When one company 
controls the OS it is able to leverage that position into control of 
the Software is built upon it. Hence the market dominance of MS in 
the desktop productivity market with Office.

[[Page 26579]]

    The current concessions made by the company are for things they 
no longer intend to dominate or already dominate to the extend it 
would be too costly for any other company to try and dislodge them. 
The government is behind the power curve while MS intends to use the 
same tactics to dominate software designed for the internet with its 
.NET initiatives. The remedies must include provisions to prevent 
the monopolistic behavior in the future as well as punishment for 
past behavior. Industry standards must be promoted for inter-
operating system communications so the non-Microsoft OS's and 
Applications can compete and communicate with those developed by 
Microsoft. It should be apparent just how much of a monopoly MS does 
have on the operating system business by the very fact that it's 
closest competitor (Linux) is given away for free under a public 
license. Just think how difficult it would be for a company to try 
and charge money for an OS. I have yet to think of one example in 
any other industry where that would be the case. If Honda decided to 
give Accords away for free how many people would buy Fords or GM's. 
Why don't people just flock to the free OS if we have such a truly 
competitive situation. The answer is obvious, it isn't truly 
competitive.
    Just one more voice.
    William OConnor

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    Introduction
    Having examined the proposed consent final judgment for USA 
versus Microsoft, we offer the following initial comments. We note 
at the outset that the decision to push for a rapid negotiation 
appears to have placed the Department of Justice at a disadvantage, 
given Microsoft's apparently willingness to let this matter drag on 
for years, through different USDOJ antitrust chiefs, Presidents and 
judges. The proposal is obviously limited in terms of effectiveness 
by the desire to obtain a final order that is agreeable to 
Microsoft.
    We are disappointed of course that the court has moved away from 
a structural remedy, which we believe would require less dependence 
upon future enforcement efforts and good faith by Microsoft, and 
which would jump start a more competitive market for applications. 
Within the limits of a conduct-only remedy, we make the following 
observations.
    On the positive side, we find the proposed final order addresses 
important areas where Microsoft has abused its monopoly power, 
particularly in terms of its OEM licensing practices and on the 
issue of using interoperability as a weapon against consumers of 
non-Microsoft products. There are, however, important areas where 
the interoperability remedies should be stronger. For example, there 
is a need to have broader disclosure of file formats for popular 
office productivity and multimedia applications. Moreover, where 
Microsoft appears be given broad discretion to deploy intellectual 
property claims to avoid opening up its monopoly operating system 
where it will be needed the most, in terms of new interfaces and 
technologies. Moreover, the agreement appears to give Microsoft too 
many opportunities to undermine the free software movement. We also 
find the agreement wanting in several other areas. It is astonishing 
that the agreement fails to provide any penalty for Microsoft's past 
misdeeds, creating both the sense that Microsoft is escaping 
punishment because of its extraordinary political and economic 
power, and undermining the value of antitrust penalties as a 
deterrent. Second, the agreement does not adequately address the 
concerns about Microsoft's failure to abide by the spirit or the 
letter of previous agreements, offering a weak oversight regime that 
suffers in several specific areas. Indeed, the proposed alternative 
dispute resolution for compliance with the agreement embraces many 
of the worst features of such systems, operating in secrecy, lacking 
independence, and open to undue influence from Microsoft.
    OEM Licensing Remedies
    We were pleased that the proposed final order provides for non-
discriminatory licensing of Windows to OEMs, and that these remedies 
include multiple boot PCs, substitution of non-Microsoft middleware, 
changes in the management of visible icons and other issues. These 
remedies would have been more effective if they would have been 
extended to Microsoft Office, the other key component of Microsoft's 
monopoly power in the PC client software market, and if they 
permitted the removal of Microsoft products. But nonetheless, they 
are pro-competitive, and do represent real benefits to consumers.
    Interoperability Remedies
    Microsoft regularly punishes consumers who buy non-Microsoft 
products, or who fail to upgrade and repurchase newer versions of 
Microsoft products, by designing Microsoft Windows or Office 
products to be incompatible or non-interoperable with competitor 
software, or even older versions of its own software. It is 
therefore good that the proposed final order would require Microsoft 
to address a wide range of interoperability remedies, including for 
example the disclosures of APIs for Windows and Microsoft middleware 
products, non-discriminatory access to communications protocols used 
for services, and nondiscriminatory licensing of certain 
intellectual property rights for Microsoft middleware products. 
There are, however, many areas where these remedies may be limited 
by Microsoft, and as is indicated by the record in this case, 
Microsoft can and does take advantage of any loopholes in contracts 
to create barriers to competition and enhance and extend its 
monopoly power.
    Special Concerns for Free Software Movement
    The provisions in J. 1 and J.2. appear to give Microsoft too 
much flexibility in withholding information on security grounds, and 
to provide Microsoft with the power to set unrealistic burdens on a 
rival's legitimate rights to obtain interoperability data. More 
generally, the provisions in D. regarding the sharing of technical 
information permit Microsoft to choose secrecy and limited 
disclosures over more openness. In particular, these clauses and 
others in the agreement do not reflect an appreciation for the 
importance of new software development models, including those 
``open source'' or ``free'' software development 
models which are now widely recognized as providing an important 
safeguard against Microsoft monopoly power, and upon which the 
Internet depends.
    The overall acceptance of Microsoft's limits on the sharing of 
technical information to the broader public is an important and in 
our view core flaw in the proposed agreement. The agreement should 
require that this information be as freely available as possible, 
with a high burden on Microsoft to justify secrecy. Indeed, there is 
ample evidence that Microsoft is focused on strategies to cripple 
the free software movement, which it publicly considers an important 
competitive threat. This is particularly true for software developed 
under the GNU Public License (GPL), which is used in GNU/Linux, the 
most important rival to Microsoft in the server market.
    Consider, for example, comments earlier this year by Microsoft 
executive Jim Allchin: http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-4833927.html
    ``Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to 
innovation,'' Bloomberg News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT
    One of Microsoft's high-level executives says that freely 
distributed software code such as Linux could stifle innovation and 
that legislators need to understand the threat. The result will be 
the demise of both intellectual property rights and the incentive to 
spend on research and development, Microsoft Windows operating-
system chief Jim Allchin said this week.
    Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while 
discussing protection of intellectual property rights 
. . . ``Open source is an intellectual-property 
destroyer,'' Allchin said. ``I can't imagine something 
that could be worse than this for the software business and the 
intellectual-property business.'' ... In a June 1, 2001 
interview with the Chicago Sun Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer 
again complained about the GNU/Linux business model, saying 
``Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual 
property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the 
license works,'' 1 leading to a round of new stories, including 
for example this account in CNET.Com: http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-6291224.html ``
    Why Microsoft is wary of open source: Joe Wilcox and Stephen 
Shankland in CNET.com, June 18, 2001.
    There's more to Microsoft's recent attacks on the open-source 
movement than mere rhetoric: Linux's popularity could hinder the 
software giant in its quest to gain control of a server market 
that's crucial to its long-term goals
    Recent public statements by Microsoft executives have cast Linux 
and the open-source philosophy that underlies it as, at the minimum, 
bad for competition, and, at worst, a ``cancer'' to 
everything it touches. Behind the war of words, analysts say, is 
evidence

[[Page 26580]]

that Microsoft is increasingly concerned about Linux and its growing 
popularity. The Unix-like operating system ``has clearly 
emerged as the spoiler that will prevent Microsoft from achieving a 
dominant position'' in the worldwide server operating-system 
market, IDC analyst A1 Gillen concludes in a forthcoming report.
    . . . While Linux hasn't displaced Windows, it has 
made serious inroads . . .] . . In attacking Linux 
and open source, Microsoft finds itself competing ``not against 
another company, but against a grassroots movement,'' said Paul 
Dain, director of application development at Emeryville, Calif-based 
Wirestone, a technology services company.
    . . . Microsoft has also criticized the General Public 
License (GPL) that governs the heart of Linux. Under this license, 
changes to the Linux core, or kernel, must also be governed by the 
GPL. The license means that if a company changes the kernel, it must 
publish the changes and can't keep them proprietary if it plans to 
distribute the code externally . . .
    Microsoft's open-source attacks come at a time when the company 
has been putting the pricing squeeze on customers. In early May, 
Microsoft revamped software licensing, raising upgrades between 33 
percent and 107 percent, according to Gartner. A large percentage of 
Microsoft business customers could in fact be compelled to upgrade 
to Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a heftier purchase price later on.
    The action ``will encourage-`force'' may 
be a more accurate term-customers to upgrade much sooner than 
they had otherwise planned,'' Gillen noted in the IDC report. 
``Once the honeymoon period runs out in October 2001, the only 
way to `upgrade'' from a product that is not considered 
to be current technology is to buy a brand-new full 
license.'''
    This could make open-source Linux's GPL more attractive to some 
customers feeling trapped by the price hike, Gillen said. 
``Offering this form of `upgrade protection'' may 
motivate some users to seriously consider alternatives to Microsoft 
technology.'' ...
    What is surprising is that the US Department of Justice allowed 
Microsoft to place so many provisions in the agreement that can be 
used to undermine the free software movement. Note for example that 
under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can 
withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds 
that Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity and 
viability of its business,'' while at the same time it is 
describing the licensing system for Linux as a ``cancer'' 
that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights 
system and the future of research and development.
    The agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set of strategies 
to undermine the development of free software, which depends upon 
the free sharing of technical information with the general public, 
taking advantage of the collective intelligence of users of 
software, who share ideas on improvements in the code. If Microsoft 
can tightly control access to technical information under a court 
approved plan, or charge fees, and use its monopoly power over the 
client space to migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it will 
harm the development of key alternatives, and lead to a less 
contestable and less competitive platform, with more consumer lock-
in, and more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues to hike up its 
prices for its monopoly products.
    Problems with the term and the enforcement mechanism
    Another core concern with the proposed final order concerns the 
term of the agreement and the enforcement mechanisms. We believe a 
five-to-seven year term is artificially brief, considering that this 
case has already been litigated in one form or another since 1994, 
and the fact that Microsoft's dominance in the client OS 
market is stronger today than it has ever been, and it has yet to 
face a significant competitive threat in the client OS market. An 
artificial end will give Microsoft yet another incentive to delay, 
meeting each new problem with an endless round of evasions and 
creative methods of circumventing the pro-competitive aspects of the 
agreement. Only if Microsoft believes it will have to come to terms 
with its obligations will it modify its strategy of anticompetitive 
abuses.
    Even within the brief period of the term of the agreement, 
Microsoft has too much room to co-opt the enforcement effort. 
Microsoft, despite having been found to be a law breaker by the 
courts, is given the right to select one member of the three members 
of the Technical Committee, who in turn gets a voice in selecting 
the third member. The committee is gagged, and sworn to secrecy, 
denying the public any information on Microsoft's compliance with 
the agreement, and will be paid by Microsoft, working inside 
Microsoft's headquarters. The public won't know if this committee 
spends its time playing golf with Microsoft executives, or 
investigating Microsoft's anticompetitive activities. Its ability to 
interview Microsoft employees will be extremely limited by the 
provisions that give Microsoft the opportunity to insist on having 
its lawyers present. One would be hard pressed to imagine an 
enforcement mechanism that would do less to make Microsoft 
accountable, which is probably why Microsoft has accepted its terms 
of reference. In its 1984 agreement with the European Commission, 
IBM was required to affirmatively resolve compatibility issues 
raised by its competitors, and the EC staff had annual meetings with 
IBM to review its progress in resolve disputes. The EC reserved the 
right to revisit its enforcement action on IBM if it was not 
satisfied with IBM's conduct.
    The court could require that the Department of Justice itself or 
some truly independent parties appoint the members of the TC, and 
give the TC real investigative powers, take them off Microsoft's 
payroll, and give them staff and the authority to inform the public 
of progress in resolving compliance problems, including for example 
an annual report that could include information on past complaints, 
as well as suggestions for modifications of the order that may be 
warranted by Microsoft's conduct. The TC could be given real 
enforcement powers, such as the power to levy fines on Microsoft. 
The level of fines that would serve as a deterrent for cash rich 
Microsoft would be difficult to fathom, but one might make these 
fines deter more by directing the money to be paid into trust funds 
that would fund the development of free software, an endeavor that 
Microsoft has indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its own 
monopoly. This would give Microsoft a much greater incentive to 
abide by the agreement.
    Failure to address Ill Gotten Gains
    Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything 
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an 
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is hardly a first time 
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct, choosing 
instead to repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers 
of the government and members of the judiciary. Microsoft has 
profited richly from the maintenance of its monopoly. On September 
30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short-term investments of 
$36.2 billion, up from $31.6 billion the previous quarter-an 
accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per month.
    It is astounding that Microsoft would face only a ``sin no 
more'' edict from a court, after its long and tortured history 
of evasion of antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary embrace of 
anticompetitive practices-practices recognized as illegal by 
all members of the DC Circuit court. The court has a wide range of 
options that would address the most egregious of Microsoft's past 
misdeeds. For example, even if the court decided to forgo the break-
up of the Windows and Office parts of the company, it could require 
more targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of its browser 
technology and media player technologies, denying Microsoft the 
fruits of its illegal conduct, and it could require affirmative 
support for rival middleware products that it illegally acted to 
sabotage. Instead the proposed order permits Microsoft to 
consolidate the benefits from past misdeeds, while preparing for a 
weak oversight body tasked with monitoring future misdeeds only. 
What kind of a signal does this send to the public and to other 
large corporate law breakers? That economic crimes pay!
    Please consider these and other criticisms of the settlement 
proposal, and avoid if possible yet another weak ending to a 
Microsoft antitrust case. Better to send this unchastened monopoly 
juggernaut a sterner message.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Nader James Love



MTC-00018484

From: Henry Stilmack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I do not believe the current proposal serves the 
interest of promoting competition or provides an adequate remedy for 
the impact of Microsoft's past business practices on the

[[Page 26581]]

Amercian consumer. Specifically, I believe the current proposal will 
only further stifle competition by giving Microsoft an advantage in 
penetration of the educational market under the guise of a 
settlement. Permitting Microsoft to settle the matter by delivering 
Microsoft products to school systems, which traditionally tend to 
favor other vendors (e.g., Apple), would be tantamount to state-
sponsorship of the extension of Mcirosoft's monopoly.
    Instead, Microsoft should be required to make payment in cash, 
and then permit the school systems to direct the use of these funds 
in the (hopefully technical) areas of their choosing. Futhermore, I 
believe the amount of the settlement is grossly inadequate to remove 
the incentive for Microsoft to continue its practices. I believe 
Microsoft will treat the settlement as a ``cost of doing 
business'', much as any other ``administrative 
overhead''. Finally, I believe the settlement should include 
requirements for Microsoft to provide open access to interfaces 
between its products, and to provide an unbundled version of Windows 
(no Internet Explorer, no Windows Media Player, etc.). These actions 
are needed to afford competitive products, including open source 
alternatives, with an environment in which they can compete on a 
level playing field with a competitor which controls the prevailing 
desktop operating system technology. Without true, timely and open 
access to interoperability information, the barriers of entry for 
alternative commercial and open source products will be too high to 
overcome the leverage held through its desktop operating system 
monopoly. To truly avoid a recurrence of past practices, an 
oversight committee of some sort is truly needed. Your attention to 
this matter is greatly appreciated.
    Sincerely
    Henry Stilmack
    Senior Systems Administrator
    UK/Netherlands/Canada Joint Astronomy Centre
    660 N. A'ohoku Place
    Tel: +1 808-969-6530
    Fax: +1 808-961-6516PGP key: ID = 05AE83F1 Signature 
= 53FDAAA963766CCB 47B067F154DC0B92



MTC-00018485

From: Gary Goldberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hello. I am the president and chief operating officer of Digital 
Marketing, Inc, a small business dedicated to web hosting and 
network consulting in operation for eight years, since 1994, in 
Maryland. I have followed the Microsoft antitrust case closely, both 
as a general member of the user community and because of a direct 
connection between Microsoft policies and my business operations. 
(We use both Linux and Windows NT/2000 to host web servers, and we 
have found less opportunities to use competing platforms and tools 
in our work because of companies like Netscape being forced to the 
sidelines by Microsoft actions in the last decade.
    I believe the settlement with Microsoft the Department of 
Justice has forged, to be weak and ineffective at addressing the 
wrongs Microsoft Corporation has perpetrated on the computer-using 
community, and will encourage Microsoft executives to continue their 
methods in the future. While I object to many provisions of the 
settlement, one in particular directly effects my 
operations-when Microsoft packs on unneeded and undesired 
additional products into their operating system in order to prevent 
competitors from developing competing products, it reduces my 
opportunities to choose and utilize those competing products on 
behalf of my clients. It also decreases the reliability and 
increased the resources my machines need to offer services to my 
clients, increasing downtime and increasing expense, making it 
harder for me to compete.
    I believe the existing Microsoft settlement to be weak and 
ineffective, doesn't fairly address either past wrongs or 
discourages Microsoft Corp from similar behavior in the future, and 
represents a waste of the enormous money, time and energy expended 
over the last seven years to rein in a convicted monopolist 
organization. I appreciate this opportunity under the Tunney Act to 
register my opinion, and I urge the presiding Judge in this case to 
reconsider and to not accept the settlement as currently drafted. 
Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Goldberg
    President, Digital Marketing Inc. (DigiMark)
    Digital Marketing Inc. (DigiMark)
    3042 Mitchellville Road
    Bowie, MD 20716-1388
    301/249-6501
    301/390-1955 facsimile
    [email protected]
    http://www.digimark.net/



MTC-00018486

From: Shane Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to take a moment to express my dissatisfaction with 
the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. Without 
going into great detail expressing each individual concern, I would 
like to outline one specific concern. Please understand that I do 
this to save both the reader and the writer time and it is not meant 
to suggest that I find the remaining provisions to be adequate.
    Section III.A.2. appears to specifically allow Microsoft to 
retaliate against any OEM computer vendor that ships computers with 
a competing operating system but with no Microsoft operating system. 
I can see no reasonable reason that Microsoft should be permitted to 
retaliate against any OEM vendor for shipping a customer order as 
per a customer's request. If I purchase a computer from a vendor and 
request that they load Linux on it, I can see no reason that I would 
want to pay the extra fees incurred in having a competing Microsoft 
product installed. If the computer came configured in this way, I 
would have to pay more and I would have to reconfigure the computer 
anyway thus eliminating any value offered by the vendor.
    I hope that the proposed settlement is not allowed to pass with 
its current shortcomings and shortsightedness. I am very 
appreciative of the fact that the legal system has stepped up to the 
plate to attempt to do something about these real and pressing 
issues.
    Thank you for your time,
    Shane Baker
    Stroudsburg, PA.



MTC-00018487

From: Joel ``Twisty'' Nye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:44pm
Subject: The Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Joel Nye
628 Buckeye St
Hamilton, OH 45011-3449
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sirs and Honorable Judges of the United States Department 
of Justice:
    I write this letter regarding the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement (PFJ) in the Antitrust Lawsuit of Microsoft Corporation. I 
am an Information Technology Specialist serving the Salvation Army 
for its Divisional Headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. As such, an 
employee and resident in the state of Ohio, and a customer of 
licensed software from Microsoft and other manufacturers throughout 
the IT industry, I find myself significantly effected by this 
judgement. In accordance with the Tunney Act, my comments are 
entered for public record within the 60 day period allowed.
    While this PFJ does an effective job of tying the hands of the 
govenment from opening Microsoft's trade secrets, it does an 
inadequate job of bringing Microsoft's behavior in line with the 
law, and fails to impede Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior with 
rival software manufacturers and organizations, nor even impede its 
adversarial role against its own partners and customers. In short, I 
think it does customers like myself a disservice by encouraging 
continued anticompetitive behavior in Microsoft. The greatest 
failure of the PFJ is its discrimination against users of non-
commercial software. Be it Free Software, Open Sourced, Shareware, 
Public Domain binaries, Web Applets, this PFJ permits Microsoft to 
advance its own interests above the freedoms of the customers found 
to suffer from an anticompetitive market. The American public and 
scientific communities are providing people the freedom to actually 
own software that cannot be legally wrested from them, while 
Microsoft's licenses keep ownership, control, and choice out of the 
public's hands.
    In light of Microsoft's illegally obtained monopoly, the people 
must be permitted the freedom to create their own alternatives... 
Such is the cycle of history, democratizing a technology which has 
allowed dominant power to rift ``haves'' from ``have 
nots.''
    In section III.A under Prohibited Conduct, Microsoft's behavior 
against OEMs is regulated, almost. The same section quickly excuses 
Microsoft to ``enforcing any

[[Page 26582]]

provision of any license with any OEM or any intellectual property 
right that is not inconsistent with this Final Judgment.'' I 
must emphasize the wording ``any license,'' for it is by 
their licenses that Microsoft exercises their power to discrimiate 
and exclude freedom. While they must be free to innovate, what is at 
issue is their much exercised ``freedom to inundate.''
    Further under section III, parts D through G further regulate 
behavior of Microsoft from monopolizing middleware and 
communications protocols of its Windows products, almost. Yet this 
regulation is conditionally invalidated by the phrase, ``This 
Section does not apply to any agreements in which Microsoft licenses 
intellectual property in from a third party.'' So by licensing, 
even if at no cost to Microsoft, and at the discrimination of all 
others, Microsoft could indeed continue to monopolize protocols with 
minimal formality. With such careless qualitification of the DoJ's 
regulation, it is a wonder why there is any wording of regulation at 
all.
    Under III.J.1, the monopolization of proprietized formats is 
thrown out with ``J. No provision of this Final Judgment 
shall:... 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... software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems,...'' Again, I 
must restate that software licenses are the contracts by which the 
customers'' freedoms are being arrested.
    The remaining sections of enforcement are inconsequential 
without the repair of behavioral regulation.
    I would like to see them further regulated from ``Content 
Discrimiation,'' a practice by which their client applications, 
such as Internet Explorer, do willingly replace the data from the 
internet, such as an error 404 web page which may or may not be 
customized to a web server's extreme capabilities or needs, 
substituting content of Microsoft's own choosing. This has profitted 
Microsoft's self-serving goals, such as promoting their MSN network 
services, but it violates the efforts of the web server to provide 
customized content to the service of the customer, which I view as a 
blatent impropriety of rights to Freedom of Speech in the publishing 
world of the internet.
    Another example of Microsoft's content discrimiation, and of 
licensing abuse, can be viewed at http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
departments/dirtytricks.shtml . It summarizes the targetting of a 
business opponent in discrimination of emails from bluemountain.com 
through a beta program of Microsoft Outlook. While they are free to 
disclaim behavior of such a program in that stage of its 
development, it is clearly an abuse of trust when free speech is 
expected to be delivered.
    Please do the computing public a favor by striking down this 
disservice of a settlement. Thank You.
    Joel Nye
    IT Specialist
    The Salvation Army



MTC-00018488

From: Thomas McElroy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that having MS interjected into the schools as a part of 
their reparations is madness. Schools are one of the few places that 
other operating systems have an opportunity to gain momentum and 
exposure. MS would happily PAY to have this happen... Not to mention 
the fact that it will hurt MS's competitors. I think thats an 
important part of any settlement plan: It should in NO way hurt MS 
competitors. It should force MS to make reparations to the other 
companies in the industry on the order of magnitude of the damage it 
has caused.
    Some things to consider would be having reparations paid to all 
the companies whose software could not be sold because MS was 
forcing them out of business by charging nothing. The services/
companies that immediately spring to mind are Real Networks, 
Netscape, Yahoo, Mapquest, Nullsoft, AOL (AIM), ICQ, Sony and 
Nintendo. In addition, I think that MS should be open to lawsuits 
due to damages from their software. I don't for the life of me 
understand how, in every other field of law, its not possible to 
sign one's rights away, except in software. If I buy a car, the mfg 
can't enforce a contract saying I will not sue for damages due to a 
defective product, and yet, somehow, MS depends on this protection 
every moment to stop people from suing for damages related to the 
inummerable security holes and flaws. MS needs to be seriously 
shaken and changed. This settlement does NOTHING to bring that to 
being, and possibly takes steps backwards.
    Thanks,
    Thomas McElroy



MTC-00018489

From: Wise, Philip
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:25pm
Philip Wise
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Ninety-Eighth District
Statehouse: (515) 281-3221
[email protected]
HOME ADDRESS
503 Grand Ave
Keokuk, Iowa 52632
Home: (319) 524-3643
House of Representatives
State of Iowa
Seventy-Ninth General Assembly
STATEHOUSE
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
COMMITTEES: Education, Ranking Member Appropriations Commerce & 
Regulation
January 23, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a senior member of the Iowa House of Representatives who has 
focused on education and economic development policy, I have 
followed with considerable interest the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case. I am vitally interested in the creation and 
deployment of technology that empowers consumers and encourages 
business expansion. I believe such technology deployment has 
potential to foster growth in the non-metropolitan areas of the 
State of Iowa, which is the type of district that I represent.
    It is my judgment that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
case is good for Iowa. I am writing, therefore, to lend my support 
to that settlement and to ask for your assistance in bringing about 
resolution of this case.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Philip Wise



MTC-00018490

From: Jackson Typesetting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern my name is Jon Park and I have been 
reading the news concerning this settlement and I feel what 
Microsoft wants is what Microsoft gets LITERALLY they seem to have 
every one of influence on their payroll/side (please choose the word 
you like best). I agree that Microsoft sould be delt with harshly 
recently the made a statement to the effect that software pirates/
crackers/virus writers are terrorists of sorts and will do what it 
takes to protect us from them. Has any one thought that maybe their 
practices of running out the competition by any means possible (I 
would like to bring to point the fact they lied to the courts on 
whom they were in contact with during proceedings) borders if not 
cross that line that defines terrorism. Or are business terroist 
tactics ok as long as money is made and no physical harm is commited 
to any persons. They seem as big a threat to the health of our 
economy, face it any strings they decide to pull effects us all, 
from centralizing computer platform development to serve their 
software only-to pulling the plug on a contract with a video 
game supplier because they decided toenter the market, I am sure the 
Japanese market didn't respond well to that.
    I just had a thought the slogan for Microsoft should be 
``We want more'' sounds like them doesn't it. Most 
companies compete not run over to earn success and notariety.
    I vote for harsher punishment.
    Thank You
    Sincerely,
    Jon Park
    1307 Eastfield Dr.
    Jackson, MI 49203



MTC-00018491

From: Julian Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I DO NOT AGREE. Does not go far enough to require documentation 
of ALL APIs used not only by ``Middleware'' but also 
Office products. Office file formats must be documented and stable 
to allow other manufacturers products to import/export office file 
formats (especially Word and Excel).

[[Page 26583]]

    Julian Thomas: [email protected] http://jt-mj.net
    In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State!
    Boardmember of POSSI.org-Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc
    http://www.possi.org
    The sad thing about Windows bashing is it's all true.



MTC-00018492

From: Joshua Aune
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has a history of steping on people. It seems that they 
are doing it again. I feel that the current settelment will not fix 
the problem.



MTC-00018493

From: Leo Sell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement, is outrageous in many ways, but none 
more than the ``wolf in sheep's clothing'' that the 
school-related aspects represent.
    Surely the proposal that as part of the fine or relief, 
Microsoft pay to provide Microsoft-centric hardware and software to 
schools must have been written by Microsoft folks. DOJ was 
hoodwinked. This ``relief'' is clearly designed to shove 
Microsoft's monopoly into the one sector left that it is not 
dominant-the schools. In supporting this, DOJ is playing right 
into Microsoft's hands, and this aspect will most certainly do 
injury to one of the few parties in the marketplace that offers a 
hale alternative to the Microsoft monopoly of desktop 
software-Apple Computer. Apple has long been the stronger 
presence in the nation's schools.
    Apple has developed an operating system that, with some time and 
resource, could be ported to use on Intel-based machines. A better 
remedy might be to make MS create a fund from which schools could 
draw money / grants to purchase the SCHOOL'S CHOICE of software and 
hardware.
    A further suitable remedy might be to require MS to provide 
funding to Apple to port OS X to Intel-based machines.
    Leo Sell, Chairperson
    Administrative-Professional Association / MEA / NEA
    Michigan State University



MTC-00018494

From: Bernhard Damberger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the currently proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
They have shown them selves to be a law breaker many times over. 
Given Microsoft's past behavior towards ``consent 
decrees'', I believe that they will continue their standard 
operating procedure w/o regards to the fact that they been proven to 
be a monopoly.
    Microsoft should be punished for breaking the law. They should 
pay consumers of their products from the over 30 billion dollar war 
chest that they have illegally collected. We must take advantage of 
this opportunity, or else the US will be back in court five years 
from now.
    Sincerly
    Bernhard H. Damberger



MTC-00018495

From: Stephen Gilbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    My name is Stephen Gilbert, and I am an Associate Professor in 
Computer Science at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa. As a 
Computer Science professional responsible for training future 
generations of computer programmers and software designers, I would 
like to comment on the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice.
    Simply put, I think that the settlement is not in the public 
interest; it does nothing to separate Microsoft the platform 
developer and owner from Microsoft the application developer. In my 
opinion, the proposed remedy provides no punishment for past illegal 
acts and no incentive to avoid committing such acts in the future.
    Stephen Gilbert
    Orange Coast College CS Dept. [email protected], 
http://csjava.occ.cccd.edu



MTC-00018496

From: Sam Frankiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing because I feel the my voice should be heard in some 
important matters. I know very little about business and I know very 
little about microsoft specifically. I do have experience in dealing 
with microsoft products and other products as well. I read through 
the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust Trail. I don't 
have any specific points to argue as far as the settlement goes. I 
think it gives Microsoft no punishment for doing anything Illegal 
and it does nothing to prevent them form doing anything illegal in 
the future. It will not remedy an of the issues the Microsoft has 
been found guilty of. This can't be allowed to happen. The laws as 
far as Antitrust issues were made for a reason and microsoft has 
broken them in the past and is doing it still. The government of the 
United States of America should do something to stop this and they 
aren't. they are accepting what microsoft has proposed no matter who 
actually proposed it. Why would any company propose something in the 
bad interest? I feel very strongly that this is an unfair proposal 
and I object.
    Sam Frankiel
    435 N Alta Vista
    Los Angeles Ca 90036
    323 972 3771



MTC-00018497

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:28pm
Subject: (no subject)
    DOJ Public Comment
    I am writing to express my opinion regarding the Department of 
Justice's case against Microsoft. I am firmly opposed to any actions 
being taken against Microsoft. Any remedy proposed under the guise 
of the anti-trust laws will amount to fascism, where property is 
property in name only. Microsoft has a moral right to do as it 
chooses with its own property and amount of penalization of 
Microsoft will abrogate that right. The government, by adhering to 
the dictatorial anti-trust laws, is engaged on a witch-hunt for 
success. Any company that has achieved success by the voluntary 
choices of consumers is a potential victim while companies that 
achieve success by government decree (e.g. US Postal Service) are 
safe from the clutches of bureaucrats. It is revolting to see that 
when the American dream finally comes true for someone (Bill Gates), 
the government and envious competitors insists on creating a 
nightmare to follow.
    Amesh Adalja
    143 Blazing Star Drive
    Butler, PA 16002
    (724) 586-6848



MTC-00018498

From: Darrell King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for your careful and conscientious work in addressing 
the issues involved with Microsoft Settlement. I can only guess at 
the amount of work involved in picking through such a tangled 
landscape.
    As I read about the proceedings, I am left with a single 
concern: have we ended the problem? As a small an owner of both Red 
Hat Linux and several Microsoft Operating Systems, I am very 
familiar with using both in my daily business.
    I've often been concerned with the situation where Open Source 
products can be built for Windows (Apache, PHP, MySQL), but those 
dedicating to porting in the opposite direction are frustrated by an 
inability to easily carry a Windows-based product to a Linux 
environment. I have to wonder if any settlement is complete that 
does not address this issue in a realistic and final manner.
    In my opinion, the fundamental issue here is not the protection 
of intellectual property. Of course Microsoft should be allowed to 
make a profit and protect it's ability to do so. I think, however, 
that having such a tight lock on the most fundamental piece of 
software a computer uses, the operating system, is too much control. 
If the Windows OS is the best, people will buy it, but no one should 
be forced to just because it's the only viable alternative. Both Mac 
and the Open Source fronts have put forth good efforts, but they are 
up against wall when they face compatibility issues regarding 
application written to run on Windows.
    My solution? Make sure that the Windows API is available for use 
by developers who wish to integrate software with alternative 
operating systems. If the consumers can run their favorite programs 
on several different operating systems, the threat of monopoly 
ceases to be.
    Thank you,
    Darrell G King

[[Page 26584]]



MTC-00018499

From: Steve Tow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish I had proper remedy for this monopolist, but I don't. 
What I can say is that the need to pull out all the stops in order 
to contain this predator is absolutely necessary. The evidence 
against MS is stacked to the ceiling. There is no real question they 
did multitudes of things wrong in terms of fair competition. From 
false incompatibilities to strong arming vendors from shipping 
anything but microsoft products. It's all there and obvious. They 
have made a mint out of manipulating or simply screwing six ways 
from Sunday any company or competition if it had a chance to make a 
buck, squash that competition, or generally help MS at the cost of 
others. This monopoly would be acceptible if it were a company doing 
it through legal and ethical means. Just being a monopoly is not a 
problem if it is acquired. It is a problem if it is stolen from the 
hands of others.
    In the years they spent building..er..stealing..this sector of 
the market they also hindered innovation to an alarming degree. I 
think anyone in the know in the OS department knows that a close 
look at Win95 vs WinXP reveals nothing but an evolution of face 
lifts with virtually no new features or technology. What have they 
done over the 7 years? Well, add new decorations, things like DVD 
and media players (things that don't take 7 years given their 
workforce), and last but not least, spent hours upon hours coming up 
with a way to make sure they can milk their already finaincially 
strained customers for more money. Regardless of BG's pseudo-victim-
esque cries of ``I need the freedom to innovate!'', there 
has been nothing but a near halt of real innovation in the MS camp 
and none from any other camp because MS has elimimnated the 
competition that could breed innovation...
    I am a technological purist. I don't give a f*ck about the all 
mighty dollar. I just want to see true innovation in a free market. 
It might be deemed too dramatic to say that this hinderance of 
innovation might keep me from setting foot on Mars before I die, but 
this could very well be true and cannot be discounted. As long as MS 
is making $$, they won't really care about techology and innovation. 
They are a marketing company, not a technical company...
    The sad truth is that regardless of my attitude towards the 
money vs innovation, the final factor may be the money. Money buys 
people, opinions, and even court cases. The many so-called 
``experts'' that are surely making a case for the other 
side of this debate are certainly well paid to give those opinions. 
I would like to think that the one thing this corporate bully could 
not buy or manipulate is the American judicial sytem. Only time will 
tell on that. Don't let it happen....
    Please put some serious restraints on this beast before they get 
away and start eating up competition once again...
    Steve Tow
    Systems Engineer
    Vital Support Systems
    Email: [email protected]
    Phone: (515) 334-5700



MTC-00018500

From: Langtry, Nathan Frederick (UMC-Student)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00018501

From: Rob Tanner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    Rob Tanner
    [email protected]



MTC-00018502

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed judgement because it does not 
require Microsoft to provie sufficient documentation in a timely 
manor to allow competing middleware providers to be successful. 
Microsoft would be required to publish the APIs, but not until the 
associated Microsoft product is in beta testing. That means any 
competing solution would always lag in the market place and be at a 
disadvantage.
    And the judgement specifically disallows the use of such 
published information for the use of developing competing operating 
systems; that restriction only serves to hinder competing products 
and to enhance Microsoft's monopoly.
    I am also opposed to the proposed judgement because it allows 
Microsoft to use licensing terms to prevent OEMs from providing 
competing operating systems or applications in addition to Microsoft 
products from doing so. That forces OEMs to choose between offering 
Microsoft products OR competing products. No OEM can afford to drop 
the dominant Microsoft products, so they effectively are prevented 
from offering competing products. Therefore, the proposed judgement 
is flawed and does not serve the public interest.
    Respectfully,
    Jim Castleberry
    7154 W. State St., #227
    Boise, Idaho, 83703



MTC-00018503

From: Scott Chamberlain
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the proposed Microsoft settlement. Microsoft is 
a direct competitor of my company and I am tired of their shady 
tactics.
    Scott L. Chamberlain



MTC-00018504

From: Cruise, Dennis (Adecco ETW)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement is a bad idea.
    Dennis Cruise
    [email protected]



MTC-00018505

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:31pm
Subject: Restraint of trade
    I live in an area where the only high-speed Internet option is 
AT&T Broadband. Last night when I called their tech support line 
to find out why my email stopped working, the support person flatly 
refused to help me unless I switched email programs from Eudora to 
Microsoft OutLook. This is exactly the sort of restraint of trade 
actions that Microsoft has been coercing other companies into for 
years. The Justice Department's slap on the wrist will do nothing to 
change Microsoft's behavior in this regard.
    By the way, I found it ominous that when I clicked on the web 
site link to send this email, rather than starting up my default 
email program, it tried to start up Microsoft OutLook. I'll leave it 
to you to sort out the implications.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Bryant
    cc: Tom Reilly-Massachusetts Attorney General



MTC-00018506

From: Wismar, Andrew
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs or Madams,
    I just wanted to voice my opinion that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement will not alleviate the problems facing this country that 
are a direct consequence of Microsoft's monopoly and their continued 
habit of abusing the aforementioned monopoly. The actions taken 
against Microsoft must be more thoroughly considered before any 
hasty ``stop-gap'' or ``wrist-slap'' measures 
are taken. Please reconsider the proposed settlement and try to come 
up with a solution that has a higher chance of success against this 
corporation and its monopolistic tendencies. Thank you, and have a 
nice day.
    Andy Wismar
    [email protected]
    Application Developer
    Information Technology Group
    Weatherhead School of Management
    Case Western Reserve University



MTC-00018507

From: Douglas Hillgren
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Say NO to the DOJ Microsoft Settlement
Douglas Hillgren
196 Blue Ridge Acres
Harpers Ferry, WV 25425
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft settlement simply will encourage Microsoft to 
continue the same

[[Page 26585]]

king of monopolistic practices that destroyed countless new high-
tech companies. The DOJ settlement is a watered down slap on the 
wrist that does nothing to punish Microsoft for stifling 
competition, stealing technology, and strong-arming business 
partners to advance MS products. Don't let the DOJ waffle on this 
and therefore sell out the American people it PURPORTS to represent. 
We don't care if the government gets any money out of this, unlike 
the DOJ (it seems). What we want MS to do is DESIST their 
extortionist and raider business practices, open their operating 
systems in a fair and consistent fashion, and above all COMPENSATE 
all the business owners, shareholders, and principles of the myriad 
of businesses they ruined.
    As a 20-year veteran of the technology industry, I can speak for 
most of my peers when I say that the DOJ settlement is nothing short 
of a highly-suspect kow-tow to Microsoft. Please make DOJ DO THEIR 
DAMN JOBS instead of sucking up to Bill Gates.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas M. Hillgren



MTC-00018508

From: John H. Robinson, IV
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft is a complete travesty of justice. The definitions of 
certain key terms (cf: API) are significantly different from the 
definitions used in the Finding of Fact. This allows a proven 
unscrupulous company to violate the spirit of the settlement with 
the letter of the settlement.
    Microsoft would also be able to get away with a slap on the 
wrist, and a charge of ``sin no more.'' We have seen that 
this is ineffective, as Microsoft was in this exact position about 
four years ago. Microsoft is also free to engage in their 
monopolistic behaviour by keeping secret key data formats, and 
interface details. This is similar to selling someone a car(data) 
and a chauffeur(application), but refusing to tell them how any of 
the controls(format, interface) work. The only way to drive the car 
is to use the company's chauffeur.
    If the settlement is allowed to go through in its current form, 
the American people will suffer further from the monopolistic 
practices of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    John H. Robinson, IV
    San Diego, California



MTC-00018509

From: Adam Wiggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Adam Wiggins
TCSP Inc.
465 E Union St #207
Pasadena, CA 91101
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel very strongly that Microsoft should not be allowed to 
``get away'' with the settlement as proposed. As a long-
time veteran of the technology industry, I have struggled against 
the oppression of Microsoft's stranglehold on the market. Today I 
own a small IT services company, and our ability to do business is 
stiffled on a daily basis by Microsoft's bad products and anti-
competative practices. We have worked hard to eliminate MS software 
from our office but, alas, it is nearly impossible to do so and 
still remain competative.
    The settlement, as proposed, is more of a prize for Microsoft 
than it is a punishment. They ``spend'' very little money 
(the sticker value of software has nothing to do with its cost to 
produce) and in exchange they get to break into a market they have 
traditionally had trouble entering, that of our educational system.
    Please do not allow them to get away with this nonsense; deny 
them this so-called ``settlement.''
    Sincerely,
    Adam Wiggins
    Chief Software Architect
    TrustCommerce / TCSP Inc.
    626 744 7700 x811
    [email protected]
    http://www.trustcommerce.com



MTC-00018510

From: Lydia Rose Pellow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement = BAD
    I am against the microsoft settlement.
    thank you,
    Lydia Pellow
    285 Plantation St. Apt. 323
    Worcester MA 01604



MTC-00018511

From: blue1suite
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the current Microsoft settlement. Microsoft has a 
verticle monopoly in the software industy. They control the 
operating system market. That control gives their application 
developers an advantage in time to market, in the use of special 
undocumented features, and in the ability to force installation by 
users. Because of their market dominance in the operating system, 
they are able to push application vendors out of niche markets.
    They continue to pursue a strategy of pushing vendors out of the 
market through incorporation of functionality into their operating 
system. Consider the examples of internet messaging and multi-media 
presentation. In both cases, Microsoft bundles applications that 
have nothing to do with the operating system into the operating 
system distribution. This leverages Microsoft's monopoly of the 
operating system into other markets. If Microsoft is allowed to 
continue this practice then AOL instant messenger and Real Media 
will have a very tough time remaining in the market. Their problems 
will not be a result of the relative merits of their product, but 
rather a result of Microsoft's dominance of the operating system 
market.
    If the operating system portion of Microsoft's business was 
operated as a separate company, the likely result would have been 
that Netscape, Real Media Player, and AOL Instant Messenger would 
have been licensed by the operating system developer for bundling in 
OEM distributions. Other competitors could have challenged the 
Netscape, Real Media, and AOL dominance by either developing a 
better product and marketing it to the operating system vendor, or 
developing an equivalent product and licensing it to Microsoft for 
less money. In this way, competitive markets would still exist and 
Microsoft would still be able to deliver a high level of 
functionality in a single bundle.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Ultis
    7514 Charmant Drive, #916
    San Diego, CA 92122
    Registered Republican



MTC-00018512

From: Hollis Blanchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned about the proposed Microsoft settlement for a 
couple reasons:
-Their donation to school systems is a flagrant attempt to 
force out one of their strongest competitors in that 
space-Apple Computer.
-The language used to protect for-profit businesses will not 
help non-profit organizations! Microsoft's *other* big competitor is 
the Open Source movement. To leave this language unchanged would be 
as good as a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
    Hollis



MTC-00018513

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
23 January 2002
    My comments about the Microsoft Antitrust Case:
    I believe the Microsoft monopoly has had a detrimental effect on 
the internet, effectively transforming the internet from an open, 
standards-based communication system to one that is a proprietary, 
Microsoft-based system under their control. In essence, Microsoft 
now partially controls communications on the internet and world wide 
web and their influence is growing. If this is not corrected, then 
there is a good possibility that Microsoft could largely or 
completely control communications and interactions on the internet 
and world wide web. Presently, Intel or AMD based computers comprise 
about 90% or more of the personal computer market in the US. 
Microsoft has a monopoly in this market, and the vast majority of 
Intel/AMD computers

[[Page 26586]]

run the Microsoft operating system and the Internet Explorer web 
browser. Thus, most web designers make websites for Microsoft based 
systems and browsers. However, Microsoft-generated web documents and 
Microsoft-based browsers rely on proprietary features (eg, non-ISO 
characters, proprietary javascript implementations, etc) which do 
not conform to web standards and can't be emulated using web-
standard browsers, such as those available for Linux and FreeBSD . 
Browsers for these systems are based on reading web documents which 
are designed to open standards, and will render pages designed for 
the proprietary standards of Internet Explorer poorly if at all. The 
net effect is that if you own an Intel/AMD computer, you cannot 
fully access the worldwide web and internet unless you run the 
Microsoft operating system on your computer. This has a real 
manifestation in my life. There are many commercial sites where I 
have tried to make on-line purchases and couldn't because my web-
standard browsers (I use three different browsers under Linux) could 
not read the web page because it was designed for Internet Explorer. 
There are also many government and official sites I have tried to 
visit that did not render properly and thus prevented me from 
obtaining useful information. The problem is getting worse, and in 
the last six months I have noticed problems at many more sites than 
in the past.
    I believe that it is essential that the U.S. Courts involved in 
this matter create an agreement which prevents Microsoft from having 
a monopoly on the internet and world wide web. As general 
suggestions, as a minimum Microsoft should make the complete source 
code of their web browser, Internet Explorer and subsequent 
editions, open to the public. The operating system source code that 
is relevant to computer networking should also be disclosed. 
Furthermore, Microsoft application programs should by default 
generate web documents which are designed to open web standards, 
such as those espoused by the Worldwide Web Consortium 
(www.w3c.org).
    Regards,
    Christian D. Turner
    1210 Moore Street
    El Paso, TX 79902



MTC-00018514

From: Bircsak, John
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my objection to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case. The scope and wording seem to be carefully 
constructed so as to not actually effect much change in the way 
Microsoft does business, and in particular to cripple free software 
efforts to work against the monopoly power that MS seems fully 
intent on wielding for all time, with no regard to the consumer.
    I am strongly opposed!
    John Alex Bircsak
    email: [email protected]
    Nashua Software Lab
    phone: (603)886-7603
    Intel Corporation
    mail: SPT1



MTC-00018515

From: Peter Wiemer-Hastings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. 
Microsoft has gotten its dominating position in the market *not* 
through creating quality products, but by using aggressive business 
techniques. They have used their dominant position to be even more 
aggressive in the field, and to enjoy a de facto monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Wiemer-Hastings
    DePaul University CTI
    243 S. Wabash
    Chicago IL 60604
    [email protected]



MTC-00018516

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Tunney Act is anti-competitive and seems to hand Microsoft 
free license to continue predatory practices that prevent creative 
ideas and competitive products from ever reaching the marketplace. 
Please do not allow the Tunney Act to proceed. It is wrong and will 
only continue the economic recession that is hurting the world 
economy so badly.



MTC-00018517

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft Settlement is a GOOD idea and fully 
support it. I believe that it will encourage Microsoft to do the 
right thing in the future and will stop wasting Government resources 
dealing with issues that happened several years ago and means very 
little to today's business and economic environment.
    Scott D Kuckuck
    1103 Willowbrook Dr
    Fishers, IN 46038



MTC-00018518

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
23 January 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I write today to encourage the Department of Justice to accept 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. A settlement is available, the 
terms of which are fair and compliance is assured. The government 
needs to accept the settlement and move on.
    Many people think that Microsoft has gotten off easy, in fact 
they have not. In order to settle the suit, Microsoft has agreed to 
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the suit. Microsoft has, for example, agreed to 
set up a technical committee that will assure that Microsoft is in 
compliance with the settlement. The settlement is fair and 
compliance will be a boost for the economy, The government needs to 
accept the settlement and move on. Microsoft and industry need to 
move on. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Yours truly,
    Paul D. Olson
    1814 Medallion Loop NW
    Olympia, WA 98502-4000



MTC-00018519

From: Ken Bowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a bad settlement.
    Ken Bowman



MTC-00018520

From: Brent Geske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as worded, is a bad idea. I believe it lacks the 
teeth to be fully enforced. Even if enforced fully, it doesn't 
really inhibit Microsoft from continuing their unfair, monopolistic, 
anti-competitive tactics. Worse yet, it does not punish Microsoft at 
all for -illegal- acts committed in the past.
    Repeating-it doesn't punish an evil doer for wrongs 
committed (and of which they have been found legally guilty). This 
simply amazes me.



MTC-00018521

From: Ted Tewkesbury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:35pm
Subject: MS settlement
    I understand that you are soliciting comments on the Microsoft 
settlement. I buy software from them; doesn't almost everyone? I'm 
quite reluctant to go into detail, but I think Justice's direction 
with MS is easily the most disappointing and dispiriting development 
of the Bush administration.
    Please do not give my email address to Microsoft or it agents, 
including its counsel. They have my user profile in several places, 
and I don't want to be denied the ability to upgrade or purchase new 
MS software in the future. I will also not sign this note. I'm a 
lawyer, and not to be confronted by one's accusers is repulsive to 
me, so this quasi-anonymous post goes directly against my grain. 
But, the conseqences of retaliation by MS are too great.
    That's how I feel.



MTC-00018522

From: Mark Grimes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    This brief e-mail is intended to voice my concern over the 
Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft. I believe the 
proposed settlement is not in the interest of the US public for a 
number of reasons including: (i) the definition of API is far to

[[Page 26587]]

restrictive and should include such additional interfaces as 
Microsoft Installer APIs, (ii) the definition of Windows Operating 
System Product is far to restrictive and should include any current 
or future Intel-compatible operating system which is derived from 
Microsoft's existing Windows 2000/NT/XP/etc. code base, and (iii) 
there is no practical method of enforcing the settlement. These are 
just the three most significant issues I believe exist in the 
settlement; there are a number of other issues.
    Thank you,
    Mark V. Grimes
    1324 Sacramento St.
    San Francisco, CA
    94109



MTC-00018523

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the current remedy, as Microsoft has shown time and 
again that it's highest buisness priority is to eliminate, either 
through aquisition or destruction, any and all of it's competition, 
be it real or perceived.
    I do not believe that the current remedy will deter Microsoft at 
all; it will only serve to encourage them, as they will surely view 
this a a mere (and inexpensive, for them) slap on the wrist.
    Thank You,
    Harley Privitera
    50 Salisbury St
    Worcester, MA 01609
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018524

From: Richard Tidd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the currently proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case disturbing. Simply, it is thoroughly ineffectual. 
Microsoft has a long history of stifling innovation in the software 
industry through its anti-competitive practices. An appropriate 
settlement would restore competition to the operating system, 
browser, and office applications sectors of the software industry. 
The leverage that Microsoft currently holds in these areas prevents 
the necessary competition that leads to innovation.
    Rick Tidd
    Senior Research Engineer
    Rutgers University Marine Field Station
    800 Great Bay Blvd.
    Tuckerton, NJ 08087
    [email protected]
    phone: (609)296-5260 X241
    fax: (609)296-1024



MTC-00018525

From: Mitch Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am a US citizen in San Francisco and I would like to express 
my concern at the Proposed Final Judgement. As a software engineer, 
I have been keeping tabs on the DOJ vs. Microsoft trial from the 
beginning. I have seen their corporate bully tactics in the 
courtroom and in the industry and I am appalled that the Proposed 
Final Judgement does nothing to address this. It is clear that 
Microsoft is a monopoly and has used their position in the past to 
leverage their market and even eliminate some promising new 
technologies. The Proposed Final Judgement should have some effect 
in terms of leveling the playing field as well as punishing 
Microsoft for engaging in monopolistic practices. My personal 
opinion is that they should release the source code to their Windows 
operating system as they have closed their internal API's in order 
to create a system of dependence. Thus third parties are wholley 
reliant upon Microsoft's ``kindness.'' Please do not allow 
this to happen. Recently there was a fantastic CPU called Alpha 
which was owned by Compaq and sold to Intel. This technology was 
years ahead of Intel's own processors but Intel is not buying it to 
improve upon it but so that it goes away quietly. I understand that 
better technologies don't always win, but Microsoft has used their 
monopoly to quash other promising ideas. Please do not agree to the 
current Proposed Final Judgement but improve upon it. Thank you for 
your time.
    Sincerely,
    Mitch Lee



MTC-00018526

From: WizSupport.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    My name is Peter Petersen. I am a professional in the IT field. 
I am a Certified Professional in both Apple and Windows PC 
technologies; I make my living fixing problems in other folks'' 
computer hardware and software. I have been involved as a 
professional in the computer industry in one aspect or another for 
several years now; I have, in the past, been involved in PC hardware 
and software sales as well as retail management. Most currently I am 
engaged as an entrepreneur, starting my own computer repair/tech 
support business dealing with PC Wintel and Macintosh hardware and 
software. I am writing to voice my opinion on the Microsoft 
Antitrust Settlement proposal.
    As an IT professional, I have seen the computer industry take 
shape from the early days of hobbyists building Heathkit PC's from 
parts, to the rise (and fall) of the IBM PC, to the move toward 
mainstream that the PC software industry took in the early 1990's, 
through the explosion of the World Wide Web that brought the 
internet out of the realm of students, educators, government 
agencies and hackers, and into the public mainstream. I have seen 
Microsoft's rise to dominance as a company and have often ruminated 
on what shape our industry would have taken if Microsoft had not 
been the dominant, agressive business they are. To the contrary of 
what I'm sure the pro-microsoft people are saying, the technological 
world would not have ground to a halt without Microsoft. In fact it 
is my belief that the exact opposite would have occurred; our 
technology level over all would be at a much higher level than it is 
now if there were no Microsoft.
    One of the most telling examples of how Microsoft's business 
practices have shaped our current state of technology is in the 
world of consumer software and home PC peripherals. I have been in 
this industry long enough to remember the way computer manufacturers 
did business before the ``Microsoft Way'' became 
commonplace. It went something like this: 1) Company X designs and 
writes software code (or builds printer, scanner, etc). 2) Software 
is tested and tested; bugs in programs are found and fixed. 3) 
Program or device works and is 100% satisfactory before it ever hits 
store shelves. 4) If, for some reason, there are problems after it 
reaches the marketplace, they are handled by a qualified support 
staff who are fully trained to address problems with that device or 
program. This process sometimes means a product is late getting to 
the marketplace, but it almost always works once it gets there. Now: 
Enter Microsoft, who is self-admittedly more concerned with meeting 
product deadlines than meeting quality standards. Microsoft develops 
a similar product to Company X, but they spend less time and money 
on quality assurance. As a result, their product arives at the 
marketplace sooner and costs less to consumers. Company X is forced 
to cut corners in order to compete. The first thing Company X cuts 
out of their budget is their lengthy Quality Assurance process; that 
way they'll be able to at least keep up with Microsoft's deadline.
    Nevermind that they now are releasing a knowingly-imperfect 
product ahead of schedule. But in order to compete with Microsoft's 
lower price, they are also forced to cut their post-purchase 
support; which means the chances of the imperfections being fixed 
after the product leaves the store shelves are also less. Most 
manufacturers have no choice but to rely on automated telephone 
menus or ambiguous FAQ web pages instead of live people talking 
customers through their problems; if a program has serious flaws the 
manufacturer might release a version update patch. In any other 
industry a company would be in serious trouble if they knowingly 
released a product before it was ready for consumer use. Nowadays, 
however, most computer softare and hardware manufacturers are doing 
just this because it is the only way they're able to compete with a 
company that gives away their product or forces it on people as an 
integrated part of their operating system. It has become an accepted 
business practice in the computer industry to release products 
regardless of their flaws, and it's my opinion that this would be 
vastly different without the dominance of Microsoft in the picture.
    Some of the Microsoft rhetoric I have heard contains words like 
``Innovation''. Clearly, Microsoft's definition of this 
word is a different one than that which the rest of the English-
language-speaking world uses. Microsoft has never innovated 
anything-even their first official operating system product, 
MS-DOS, was purchased from Seattle Computer Works before being 
licensed to IBM for use in the first IBM

[[Page 26588]]

Personal Computer. I'm sure by now you've heard all of the stories 
about Windows being modeled after the Macintosh operating system; 
Microsoft's other ``flagship'' product, Office, is made up 
of components that had their beginnings in other programs as well. 
Excel wasn't the first spreadsheet program; that honor goes to 
VisiCalc. MS Word is not the first graphical word processor; many 
companies developed similar products for the (pre-Macintosh) Apple 
II and Commodore 64 platforms before IBM PC's were even 
sophisticated enough to handle such graphics-intensive products. 
Even the concept of an ``Office Suite'' of programs is 
borrowed from AppleWorks, a venerable integrated software package 
that also hails back to the early Apple II days. In the entirety of 
Microsoft's impressively-large catalog of software products, there 
is not a single one that is based on an original Microsoft idea. 
They all have their roots in products that were first conceptualized 
at other companies. Most of those companies are now either out of 
business or have been purchased outright by Microsoft and 
``brought into the fold''.
    It has been argued that any punishment of Microsoft would have 
devastating effect on our economy. I believe this is not true; if 
anything the economy would be stimulated by such an action. If 
Microsoft were forced to compete on an even level with other 
companies, they would find it necessary to spend the money and time 
necessary to insure their product's quality before releasing it; 
this would give other companies a chance to do the same. The 
industry's overall quality of products would increase, and the 
amount of jobs at every tech-sector company would increase as 
companies would hire more employees to bolster their Quality 
Assurance departments. It would also give an edge to companies 
developing alternative operating systems like Linux which would 
allow them to gain a more competitive market share.
    One possible alternative to an outright breakup of the company 
would be an injunction requiring them to freely distribute the 
source code to their operating system and browser products. This 
would put them on even footing with Open-source operating systems 
(Linux, FreeBSD) and Browsers (Opera), and would guarantee fair 
business practices by effectively removing the operating system/
browser integration war from even being an issue. Microsoft could 
still charge $300 for their Office products if they wanted to, but 
there wouldn't be any way they could financially exploit their 
dominance in the operating system market; they wouldn't 
automatically get $100 for every PC sold as is the case currently. 
This in turn would change the incentive in developing operating 
systems from one of profit to one of functionality and 
stability-which would eventually translate to better products.
    Thank you for taking the time to read; in parting I urge you to 
do whatever is necessary to limit Microsoft's ability to suppress 
the computer industry's overall quality by forcing other companies 
to adopt Microsoft's poor quality standards in order to stay 
competitive.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Petersen



MTC-00018527

From: Carl Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The attached letter is offered as support for the settlement 
planned for the Microsoft anti-trust case.
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to show my support for the 
settlement planned for the Microsoft anti-trust case. In my opinion, 
the legal action taken was unnecessary and cost the taxpayers'' 
millions of dollars. As a result, the opportunity to compromise 
should be accepted without further delay.
    It is my understanding that Microsoft has taken several actions 
with this deal that should satisfy its opponents. They will offer 
competitors the opportunity to operate their software within the 
Windows platform; in addition, Microsoft will provide unprecedented 
access to its internal interfaces and server protocols. Competitors 
will also enjoy the ability to license Microsoft's intellectual 
property as well.
    I believe that this agreement was mediated fairly and will help 
Microsoft's rivals compete with Microsoft over market share in the 
coming years. Please allow this deal to proceed, so that Microsoft 
can focus on what they do best ... creating great technology.
    I thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Johnson
    8050 Daniel Place NW
    Silverdale, WA 98383



MTC-00018528

From: Ched Switzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's settlement proposal is trying to pull the wool over 
your eyes.. Don't settle for their trickery...



MTC-00018529

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Besse
Antitrust Division
US DoJ
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
From: Keith Bierman
1532 Norman Av
San Jose, CA 95125
Software Developer
    The PFJ is inadequate. Since the DoJ won the case on it's 
merits, I find it amazing and disappointing that the PFJ essentially 
leaves Microsoft both free to continue using the same tactics and 
essentially free from any meaningful penalty.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html provides a short list of 
things that are wrong with the PFJ. I am sure that there are many 
more things wrong with it (actually, having read the PFJ a few dozen 
times, I couldn't see where to start. There is so little that is 
right).
    I urge the DoJ, the Court and the Executive Branch to reconsider 
this ill-advised settlement. Anti-trust and fairness aside, please 
consider the dire long term consequences to US security if this 
monopolist continues to gain market share and eventually take over 
the server marketplace (displacing mainframes, etc.). Public 
posturing aside, this Monopolist has consistently left gaping 
security holes, hidden the evidence, stonewalled researchers and 
otherwise imperiled that fraction of the computing population 
dependent upon their services.
    A monoculture is always dangerous for an ecosystem. A flawed 
computer OS monoculture will imperil our nation.
    Your attention in this matter is appreciated.
    Keith Bierman



MTC-00018530

From: Michael Nunamaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I believe the currently proposed settlement with Microsoft is a 
very bad idea. Microsoft appears to me to have ignored previous 
directives of the courts. I believe that only a structural remedy 
(i.e. a breakup) will actually accomplish a true remedy to 
Microsoft's monopolostic practices.
    Thanks for your time,
    Mike Nunamaker
    Computer consultant since 1982



MTC-00018531

From: Jose Rodriguez
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jose Rodriguez
212 Rock Road West
Lambertville, NJ 08530
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice: The 
Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to 
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers.

[[Page 26589]]

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



MTC-00018532

From: jdw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I do not think that the US Government should settle the case 
with Microsoft. Please continue to pursue the heaviest penalty and 
not settle this case.
    Thank you,
    Jeff Wandling
    27801 SE 43rd St.
    Fall City, WA 98024
    206-605-2278



MTC-00018533

From: Richard Ernst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want you to know how much I object to the proposed settlement 
regarding Microsoft being a monopoly and using that monopoly to 
unfairly eliminate competition. I'll just quote Russell Pavlicek's 
article from InfoWorld.com, as he's summed it as well or better than 
I can. I hope you will read it and understand how this is not only 
NOT punishment, and NOT just a slap on the wrist for MS, but 
actually a boon to them.
    VERY sincerely,
    Richard W. Ernst
    [email protected]
RUSSELL PAVLICEK: ``The Open Source'' from InfoWorld.com,
Wednesday, January 23, 2002
    I'VE RECEIVED A number of requests to address the pending (as of 
this writing) settlement of the civil anti-trust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. Under the pending agreement, Microsoft will be obligated 
to provide hardware and software to thousands of underfunded school 
districts across the country. The logic, if you can call it that, is 
that such schools could benefit greatly from receiving the 
technology they lack.
    Undeniably, there is an emotionally compelling case for this. A 
gigantic company, found guilty of doing wrong, is ordered to help 
the underprivileged. ``We need to do it for the 
children,'' cry the politicos. ``Think of the 
children!''
    ``For the children.'' That's the phrase politicians in 
Washington use to justify an action so irrational that it cannot be 
justified any other way.
    How can I properly characterize this solution? It is like a 
court ordering a convicted drug dealer to give out more free samples 
of heroin to underprivileged children to ensure that their poverty 
does not deprive them of the opportunity to become addicted. Sure, 
public classrooms need more technology. And it is especially 
important that children who don't have as many opportunities in life 
get assistance. But that is not adequate justification for assigning 
the fox to guard the hen house.
    Personally, I like the counterproposal put forward by Red Hat: 
Let Microsoft donate money for computing resources for underfunded 
schools, but let those donations go toward hardware only; then 
populate those machines with open-source software.
    Why open source? Consider the future: What will the schools do 
when they need to upgrade? If you give schools Microsoft software, 
they will be caught in the endless upgrade cycle that has 
characterized life in the Microsoft world. Those upgrades will cost 
money, money that these targeted school districts, by definition, 
cannot spare.
    Instead, arming schools with open-source software will have two 
benefits. First, it will set schools down a long-term path that they 
can afford. The cost of obtaining open-source upgrades is trivial. 
Without low-cost software upgrades, all those nice shiny computers 
run the risk of becoming boat anchors in short order. I'm sure 
someone is saying, ``But open source is too difficult to 
administer!'' Such does not have to be the case, but I'll deal 
with that issue in a future column.
    Also, the Red Hat proposal does not reward Microsoft in the long 
term. If a company is convicted of overpowering markets, why would 
you reward them by putting one of the few markets they don't lead 
under their control? This sounds a lot like a seed-unit program for 
education, not the penalty imposed from losing a trial.
    Corporate misdeeds are supposed to earn punishment, not long-
term investment opportunities. I believe we would all be better off 
if the courts acknowledged the difference between the two.



MTC-00018534

From: Russell Schoof
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This message is to express my opposition to the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. My opposition is based 
on two primary concerns:
    1. I see nothing in the settlement that will have the practical 
effect of restraining Microsoft from continuing its predatory 
monopolistic practices. I am particularly concerned that those who 
currently provide the only credible competition to Microsoft in 
opertating systems-Open Source developers of products such as 
Linux and FreeBSD-receive no protection whatsoever. Does the 
Department of Justice actually believe that Microsoft will not 
direct the immense power of its many billions of dollars at these 
projects in order to destroy them?
    2. Giving Microsoft software to schools will further its 
monopoly by allowing the company to do precisely what it is not 
supposed to do: give away its software and thereby drive away 
competition (from Apple, which currently has a substantial share of 
the educational market), and later force the schools to pay to 
upgrade to future versions.
    I have been a user of Microsoft productivity and development 
software for fourteen years, and I have made a living from it as an 
independent consultant. I am now in the process of moving myself and 
as many of my clients as I can to non-Microsoft products. I do so 
because the other software is of higher quality and value, and 
because I have grown to despise this company that does all it can to 
lock users into its increasingly mediocre products, then extorts 
money from them by forcing an unending stream of unnecessary 
upgrades. In dealing with the company as a customer, I have become 
convinced that Microsoft management is, in the end, interested 
solely in money and the power that large quantities of it brings to 
gain ever more.
    Russell Schoof
    [email protected]



MTC-00018535

From: Jeffrey Walls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/10 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regarding: Microsoft Corporation Antitrust Litigation Settlement 
Agreement,
MDL Docket No. 1332
    Dear Honorable Judge Frederick Motz,
    The reasons why I feel that the settlement is unfair and does 
not properly compensate the plaintiffs for the charges they have 
filed against Microsoft in their civil suits are the following.
    The final outcome of the settlement will be a very large program 
aimed at training our students attending the underprivileged K-12 
schools and their teachers on how to use Microsoft software.
    This program is designed to guide the teachers on how to use 
Microsoft software in their education curriculum. The computers 
purchased through this program will be limited to those which are 
certified by Microsoft. This means that these computers will be 
configured to run Microsoft software.
    The settlement excludes completely the ability for rival 
software companies from providing software and services to these 
underprivileged K-12 schools, which compete directly with 
Microsoft's own software products in the PC software market place.
    The fact is there is a budding new software industry based on 
free software otherwise known as GNU or Open Source software. The 
term free applies to both free in cost and free as in freedom. This 
new software industry is based on software written by many 
programmers working together through loosely tied collaboration 
using the communication tools provided by the Internet. (e-mail, 
file transfers, web browsing).
    These same tools of communication and methods of collaboration 
which the Internet provides, are the ones which we wish for the 
students of the underprivileged K-12 schools to take advantage. This 
is due to the fact that this is the same modality by which our 
scientists use to achieve the latest advances in science and 
technology.
    I am also very much aware that Microsoft is working to try and 
stop this new software industry based on GNU/Open Source

[[Page 26590]]

software. This GNU/Open Source software industry is one of 
Microsoft's biggest concerns since it threatens its dominance in the 
personal computer software market. The current settlement is 
structured to directly shut out this segment of the software 
industry.
    I am also aware that countries around the world are starting to 
use GNU/Open Source software since it is freely distributed (as in 
zero cost and without distribution restrictions) across the world 
through the Internet. One segment of this world population who is 
taking a keen interest in this software are the schools in these 
foreign countries because it provides a way of upgrading their 
computer systems with little or no cost.
    I would like the students of the underprivileged K-12 schools to 
be given a chance to take advantage of the benefits of this GNU/Open 
Source software provides, as are the students in countries around 
the world. This can only be done by changing the settlement terms of 
this class action suit.
    I would like for you to act in the following matter in regards 
to this case.
    Ensure that the plaintiffs understand our concerns regarding 
their settlement with Microsoft. Ensure that the attorneys 
representing the plaintiffs, in this civil class action suit, inform 
their clients that there are no provisions in their settlement to 
allow for free and open competition for the needed software products 
used to upgrade the computer systems for these underprivileged K-12 
schools.
    I have recommend that you change the terms of the settlement 
such that Microsoft have no say what so ever in how the money of the 
settlement be spent. This should be accomplished by having Microsoft 
donate cash grants to the underprivileged K-12 schools which were 
targeted in the original settlement. The size of the individual 
grants should be in proportion to the number of students enrolled in 
the school. The schools should then be directed to spend the money 
on computer hardware, software, networking infrastructure and 
Internet connection bandwidth for systems used by the teachers and 
students, as they best see fit for themselves. I emphasize that 
these funds be restricted to upgrading the IT infrastructure just 
mentioned, used directly in the classroom environment. These would 
be upgrades to system used in general class rooms, libraries, 
science labs, computer clubs or which ever other teaching forum the 
school has developed for the teaching of their students. The role of 
the Foundation, as created in the settlement agreement, should 
expend its efforts to ensure this funding policy be enforced.
    Furthermore, in order to ensure that Microsoft has no part in 
directing how the settlement funds be spent, the Foundation created 
to manage the settlement funds should be made up of people from our 
leading science and education institutions. Examples of the people 
who should be sought to sit on the blue ribbon board of this 
foundation would be the head of the National Science Foundation, the 
head of the National Academy of Sciences, the Presidential Science 
Adviser, directors of our national laboratories, presidents of our 
renown universities, heads of teachers unions, the Secretary of 
Education, the Secretary of Commerce or other people who have great 
knowledge of both education, its advancement and the free and open 
market system upon which the strength of this country is founded. 
The task of forming a search committee for these board members 
should be given to you, Honorable Judge Motz, or someone to which 
you delegates this task.
    I wish to thank you for your time and your assistance with this 
important matter.
    Jeffrey Walls
    110 Saint Thomas Road
    Lancaster PA 17601
    717 560-9146



MTC-00018536

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Micorsoft settlement is not thorough enough, in my opinion, 
to keep MS from doing what they are doing to competitors now. It 
will simply take them a few more days to push out other Operating 
Systems or software browsers from the market by controlling how the 
core OS deals with 3rd party software. They need to be made 
accountable for their lack of support to other vendors who can not 
sell their products because MS has not made it a priority to help 
other companies work on a level playing field. By allowing 3rd party 
vendors to flounder, they can keep their own products in the 
consumer's homes.
    Matthew S. Minor
    Manager, Graphic Design
    HealthMedia, Inc
    734.623.0000 x255
    [email protected] 




MTC-00018537

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been involved in the use of computer software for many 
years now, from long before the domination of the PC by Microsoft. 
The standardization of software API's is a good thing, but in my 
opinion Microsoft has brought the software platforms to a mere 
shadow of what could have been achieved had the programming 
interface to their OS been truly open. Too many good products have 
gone by the wayside as MS brought out their own version, often 
poorly implemented. The WWW is a prime example. I truly dislike the 
IE explorer, however, the MS implementation of Java has forced web 
pages to support multiple implementations of Java, with the result 
often that the only one which works is the one for IE.
    This behavior *must* be stopped. What does it truly show if the 
US wins an antitrust suit and then gives a stamp of approval to the 
same behaviors? In my opinion, the original court order to break up 
MS didn't go far enough.
    Please take the appropriate action with this settlement. Don't 
let the public down this time.
    Regards,
    CW Harris
    Smithfield, UT



MTC-00018538

From: Kovalid Inc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:40pm
Subject: Your Honor:
    Your Honor:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the 
American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial. Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices are counter to the law and spirit of our free-
enterprise system. These practices inhibit competition, reduce 
innovation, and thereby decrease employment and productivity in our 
nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future. It is my 
belief that a very strong set of strictures must be placed on 
convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to continue 
their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    All my best,
    Jason Spisak
    6302 West Olympic Boulevard
    Los Angeles, Ca 90048



MTC-00018539

From: Colin Steele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement is a travesty and a gross miscarriage of 
justice. Microsoft is a MONOPOLY. There's no longer debate about it; 
consumers suffer because of Microsoft's practices. Please put a 
proper end to their monopolistic behavior. The current settlement is 
simply unacceptable.
    Colin Steele



MTC-00018540

From: Fred Isaacs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a software engineer developing commercial products 
for over thirty years. Microsoft is not the first company to 
dominate my industry by competing unfairly; IBM monopolized the 
hardware and software market in the mainframe era. Whenever any 
company dominates the computer industry, innovation suffers. We see 
only the products that they bring to market and we are denied the 
progress which comes from competing ideas as embodied in competing 
products. I enjoy working in software products where there is free 
competition; my customers get better products because of it. 
Microsoft has already been found to have indulged in

[[Page 26591]]

anticompetitive practices. The plan proposed by the 9 states seems 
to have some hope of moderating Microsoft's behavior in the future. 
The plan proposed by the DOJ seems most unlikely to change anything. 
I would like to see the plan proposed by the states become the 
judgment enforced by the courts; that might help to restore 
competition in the personal computer software industry and benefit 
us all.



MTC-00018541

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:41pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    hello, this does not require a whole lot of extra hyperbolic 
trogonometry. its kind of like in ``we hold these truths to 
self evident''. it would be very difficult to think of 
something more inexcusable, preposterous, and obscene than to turn 
microsoft loose on the school system with their criminal scam. these 
are just impressionable childrem that don't know any better. i was 
wondering how long it would take them to jump on the terrorism 
bandwagon. sure enough, now they are renewing their efforts to stop 
``piracy'' of their ``software'' to fight 
terrorism. not only do they need to be split up, they need to just 
flat out be shutdown. what reasonable person is not against 
terrorism but using ``fighting terrorism'' to further 
criminal agendas is beneath contempt. and it's not just that. 
everything they do is way out of line. how can anyone fail to see 
it? this proposed settlement is not only worse than nothing but 
actually leaves them in better position to do even worse than ever 
before than ever before. please do the right thing.
    yours truly
    carl ziegler



MTC-00018542

From: Jeffrey Curtis
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the proposed settlement because I do not think 
it provides sufficient punishment to balance Microsoft's offenses, 
nor sufficient incentive to prevent them from doing the same in the 
future. Furthermore, the idea of punishing a monopoly by requiring 
them to extend their monopoly into the US educational system is 
incomprehensible.
    Jeffrey Curtis
    Sr. Software Engineer
    Aether Systems, Inc.
    88 Froehlich Farm Blvd
    Woodbury, NY 11797
    Tel:(516) 918-4514



MTC-00018543

From: Dan Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a very bad idea!
    Sincerely,
    Dan Compton



MTC-00018544

From: Kovalid Inc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future. It is my 
belief that a very strong set of strictures must be placed on 
convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to continue 
their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    All my best,
    Jason Spisak
    6302 West Olympic Boulevard
    Los Angeles, Ca 90048



MTC-00018545

From: Paul Cory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the proposed Microsoft settlement, on the grounds 
that it will not effectively inhibit the company's anti-competitive 
practices. In fact, some of the remedies will actually remove 
competition from the market. To wit: ``Microsoft will license 
on reasonable terms the network protocols needed for non-Microsoft 
applications or operating systems to connect to Windows servers. 
``
    This allows Microsoft to charge for its basic networking 
protocols, shutting out Open Source, volunteer produced software, as 
well as small ISVs. For example, SAMBA is software that allows non-
Microsoft operating systems (linux, Mac OS X, OpenBSD, and so on) to 
connect with Microsoft servers using the Microsoft protocols. SAMBA 
is an volunteer, Open Source software product: it has no money to 
pay license fees, no matter how ``reasonable.'' To really 
open the marketplace, the above quoted section should read: 
``Microsoft will make the details of the network protocols 
needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems to 
connect to Windows servers freely available in the public domain in 
a timely manner. Timely manner means the details will be published 
publicly six months before such protocols are incorporated into 
official versions of any Microsoft product.''
    This would allow anybody, including volunteer projects, to 
create software to connect to Windows servers. In addition, it 
prevents Microsoft from delaying the release of the information for 
competitive advantage. This is only one example of the many holes, 
omissions and otherwise questionable provisions of the proposed 
settlement. A more complete list is available at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html . If the proposed settlement is 
accepted in its present form, it will not open the marketplace. It 
will only serve to improve Microsoft's monopoly position, and leave 
the customer with less choice and higher prices than before.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Cory



MTC-00018546

From: Clark Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the settlement goes far enough in 
guaranteeing a competitive marketplace. I think MS has some terrific 
products, but I also know that they could, and would, do a much 
better job if they faced real competition, competition which has 
been severely hampered by the current environment. As a U.S. citizen 
I am commenting that I believe that money talked in creating this 
settlement, and that the best interests of the country have not been 
served. I would like further review, and some significant changes in 
protections for smaller competitors, and for other operating systems 
to explicitly run MS products.
    Best regards,
    Clark Elliott



MTC-00018548

From: Casey Kimbrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    It's already happening. Microsoft is attempting to compromise 
the very integrity of our local, state, and Federal Governments 
through promises of free and discounted products and services. Is it 
not clear through past presedent and behaviour that Microsoft is not 
just a ruthless competitor, but un-yielding to the most basic of 
American Tradition, Principles or Business Morality? Microsoft will 
not yield in it's endeavor to dominate and control. Ever. There 
seems no limit to the size of the Microsoft appetite for wealth and 
power. Nor does there seem any limit to the business, or 
geographical domain of Microsoft desire. Do We, as Americans, really 
want to be responsible for creating another global monopoly like 
DeBeers? Is this in the best interest of either the American people, 
Innovation, or the Global Economy? I think not.
    Microsoft is a convicted corporation. They are a company found 
guilty in US court of law of serious offenses against the American 
Public. From past behaviour, indications are that it is highly 
likely that Microsoft will continue to violate US Law, and trod on 
American Values. They should be prosecuted accordingly.
    E. C. Kimbrell



MTC-00018549

From: Beasley, Jason, NPONS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:41pm

[[Page 26592]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to register my displeasure with the Proposed Final 
Judgement for the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. As the settlement 
stands, it does little to protect vendors, developers, or 
competitors from Microsoft's predatory practices (and the little it 
does is easily surmountable), neither does it seek redress from 
Microsoft for prior illegal actions.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Beasley
    Network Engineer, AT&T
    St. Louis, MO



MTC-00018550

From: Patrick Visniewski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea. The proposal will ultimately be 
ineffective and very difficult to enforce. For such a large software 
company, the proposed settlement will be very easy to work around. 
Also Microsoft has shown a history of ignoring court orders.



MTC-00018551

From: David Strom
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    January 23, 2002
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing on behalf of the over ten thousand Minnesotans who 
are involved in the Taxpayers League of Minnesota to express our 
opinion on the Department of Justice's proposed settlement with 
Microsoft.
    The Taxpayers League of Minnesota has always held the position 
that pursuing the antitrust case against Microsoft was not in the 
public interest. Our position has been based on the judgment that 
the harms to consumers claimed were wholly speculative, while the 
harm to Microsoft, its shareholders, and the overall economy of 
pursuing the case are actual and clearly visible. It is our belief 
that antitrust cases should not be pursued simply to protect 
competitors in a marketplace, but solely to protect consumers from 
harm.
    We believe that it is in the interests of taxpayers, consumers, 
stockholders, and Americans interested in the long-term health and 
vigor of the economy to settle the Microsoft case as quickly as 
possible. Regardless of the original merits of the antitrust case 
against Microsoft, it is now clear that continuing to pursue this 
case will serve no useful purpose. There can be no doubt that the 
economy functions best when the marketplace, not policymakers, 
dictates outcomes. We strongly believe that while it is in the 
public's interest to ensure a competitive marketplace, in practical 
terms the monopolies that are most destructive are usually created 
by government, rather than those regulated out of existence. 
Microsoft's dominance in one or two segments of the software market 
has been created not despite, but rather because of a strongly 
competitive marketplace that has served consumers well. It is a 
serious mistake to use the coercive powers of government to punish 
businesses for their success within the marketplace.
    The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggests that 
consumers have benefited substantially from Microsoft's competitive 
business practices. Software is far more flexible and reliable every 
year, and consumer choice has expanded exponentially due to the 
ubiquity of home computing and access to the Internet-developments 
which could not have occurred without Microsoft's relentless 
innovation and competition in the marketplace.
    By almost any reasonable measure, the value delivered to 
consumers by the computer industry has skyrocketed over the past 20 
years-leading to one of the fastest rates of adoption of any new 
technology in history. It is simply absurd to suggest that the 
dominance of Microsoft in the personal operating systems market has 
hurt consumers, when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. 
It would be difficult to argue that the expansion of the internet or 
home computing could have occurred as quickly as they did without 
the innovations pushed by Microsoft-including the integration of 
tcp/ip and Internet browsing capability into the operating system.
    The assertion that Microsoft is a destructive monopoly is, in 
our judgment, rather arbitrary and capricious. Microsoft is clearly 
not a monopoly in the software business in general. It is not even 
the dominant player in the operating system market in general-in 
fact, flavors of UNIX still dominates the server market. In fact, 
Microsoft's dominance in operating systems is confined to the home 
computing market, and even there it is confronted with strong 
competition from Apple Computer's Mac OS X, and the freely 
distributed Linux operating system.
    It is clearly in the nation's interest to resolve this case as 
quickly as possible. As long as there is substantial uncertainty in 
the software marketplace, competition and innovation will be 
inhibited, and the incentive to invest will be reduced. At a time of 
increased economic uncertainty and reduced business investment, it 
is vital to remove this drag on the American economy.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter,
    Linda Runbeck,
    President,
    Taxpayers League of Minnesota.



MTC-00018552

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:44pm
Subject: Litigation
    Microsoft has been punished for their role in the extreme 
advancements made in the field of technology. It is enough! Stop the 
foolishness and get back to work.
    Elizabeth Byerly



MTC-00018553

From: Bill Gilliland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello;
    I am a graduate student at UC Davis, who uses a variety of 
computing platforms (Mac OS 9/X, Solaris, Linux, Windows) and I am 
very concerned about Microsoft's monopoly. I think their business 
practices are extremely harmful, with the lack of competition in 
both the OS market and the applications (e.g. Office) market being 
very detrimental to me as a consumer-denying me a choice while 
raising the cost to me of doing research. There are also clear 
indications that they are planning to throttle emerging markets with 
extortionist licensing policies, e.g. the .NET initiative, which 
threaten to prevent possibly very beneficial competition before it 
even gets started.
    I encourage you to take the necessary steps to punish Microsoft 
for their clear and willful violations of the Sherman act, and 
structural steps to prevent future abuses of their market power.
    Thank you,
    Bill Gilliland
    Davis, Ca



MTC-00018554

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    [Reprinted with permission of the original author: Brian Koppe, 
Buffalo Grove, IL]
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. It is my understanding that the purpose of the 
Proposed Final Judgement should be to reduce, as much as possible, 
the Applications Barrier to Entry. In other words, make it the 
market more open to competition from other products. After reading 
the Proposed Final Judgement and multiple essays on its problems and 
benefits, I have noticed many things that I take issue with. 
However, I'd like to focus on one in particular. This problem is in 
the issue of Microsoft End User License Agreements (EULA). It has 
been shown that Microsoft creates EULA's that place anticompetitive 
restrictions on the user, and that Microsoft has intentionally 
created incompatibilities to keep users from using Windows 
applications on compatible operating systems that are not Windows. 
One example of this is in the license agreement for the Microsoft 
software, NewsAlert-offered by MSNBC. In that license it says, 
``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft 
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. ...'' 
Users of competing operating systems, such as Linux, which are 
capable of running some Windows applications are not legally 
capable, under

[[Page 26593]]

this restrictive license, to use this program. One suggestion as to 
how restrictive licenses such as this should be forced to be changed 
is for the excerpt above to be re-written as follows: ``MSNBC 
Interactive grants you the right to install and use copies of the 
SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly licensed copies 
of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating system.'' In the 
past, it has been shown that Microsoft places technical barriers on 
competition as well. The 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft case shows how 
Microsoft added code to its product so that, when run on a competing 
operating system (DR-DOS in this case), it would give the user an 
error. As I'm sure you can easily look up, the judge ruled that 
``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.'' Unfortunately, with the Proposed Final Judgement 
as it stands, there is no language to prohibit these restrictive 
licenses nor is there language to prohibit future intentional 
incompatabilities.
    Therefore, in its current state, the Proposed Final Judgement 
assists Microsoft in continuing these actions and does not succeed 
in opening the Applications Barrier to Entry. In closing, I would 
like to add my support for Dan Kegel's essay, ``On the Proposed 
Final Judgement in United States v Microsoft,'' located at 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html, which is the source of the 
facts I have included in this letter. I would also like to add my 
support for his suggested amendments to the Proposed Final 
Judgement, which are described near the end of his essay, and to the 
alternate settlement proposed by some of the plaintif states and 
located on the website for the National Association of Attorneys 
General at http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-
remedy-filing.pdf.
    Sincerely,
    Bree Baskin



MTC-00018555

From: Clark Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the settlement goes far enough in 
guaranteeing a competitive marketplace. I think MS has some terrific 
products, but I also know that they could, and would, do a much 
better job if they faced real competition, competition which has 
been severely hampered by the current environment. As a U.S. citizen 
I am commenting that I believe that money talked in creating this 
settlement, and that the best interests of the country have not been 
served. I would like further review, and some significant changes in 
protections for smaller competitors, and for other operating systems 
to explicitly run MS products.
    Best regards,
    Clark Elliott



MTC-00018556

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a practicing lawyer completely uninvolved with the antitrust 
case against Microsoft, I firmly support the proposed settlement for 
the following reasons:
    1. It is in the best interest of the consuming public;
    2. It is a saving to the taxpayers by bringing to an end this 
expensive litigation;
    3. It creates an even ``playing field'' for 
Microsoft's competitors who were primarily responsible for bringing 
pressure on the Department of Justice to initiate the original 
litigation against Microsoft.
    This letter is written by a private citizen who believes 
wholeheartedly in the free enterprise system.



MTC-00018557

From: Joe Weber
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my strong disapproval with the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. The proposed settlement fails to protect 
consumers and competitors, and fails to punish a convicted 
monopolist. Basic economics teaches that monopolies extract capital 
from consumers which otherwise would be available to them in a free 
market. This money needs to be returned to the public, even if 
through fines paid to the FTC. The proposed settlement does not do 
this.
    Of the many problems with the settlement, I can comment on the 
problems with Definition J of Microsoft Middleware. By extending its 
operating system to include functions which are clearly in the 
application domain, Microsoft in the past killed competition by 
using their monopoly to obsolete legitimate applications from third 
parties. This allows them to remove a competitor in their 
application business without having to compete in the open market. 
Definition J is contrary to all established definitions of 
middleware which would protect consumers. Instead it allows multiple 
``loop holes'' for Microsoft to use to continue their 
illegal and anti-competitive behavior. Middleware is a set of API's 
that allow a clear distinction between application and operating 
system. Simply changing version numbers, or sending code as an 
update, does not change this definition. Yet Definition J allows 
both obvious and blatant loopholes to allow a non-standard, and 
favorable to Microsoft, definiti! on of middleware. This must be 
changed if their is to be any attempt at a fair settlement.
    Joe Weber, PhD.
    Sr. Technologist, Advanced Platforms
    CableLabs
    400 Centennial Parkway
    Louisville, CO 80027-1266
    303.661.3804 (direct)
    303.661.9100 (main)
    303.661.9199 (fax)



MTC-00018558

From: EXT-Hildreth, Ramon X
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a bad idea. The issue of microsoft and the anti-trust 
case needs further study and examination. thanks.



MTC-00018559

From: Barbara O'Connell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement purposed for case United States v. Microsoft is 
not acceptable to me as a consumer. Microsoft's anticompetitive 
actions over the past decade have forced consumers to accept poor 
quality software in order to use desired quality software. If it 
were possible to choose the operating system platform on hardware 
purchased at the consumer and business level, the consumer would do 
so. A settlement must robustly support the entry of alternative 
operating systems in the market at Microsoft's expense. There must 
be a level-playing field for the consumer to make a judgement about 
which product to purchase. I make these statements solely on my 
personal opinion. I do not speak for my employer or any other 
individual or entity. I do speak as a consumer and computer 
professional.
    Thank you,
    Barbara O'Connell



MTC-00018560

From: David Linville
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement does not impose a strict 
enough penalty on Microsoft. It is important to ensure that 
Microsoft does not retain the profits it illegally obtained as a 
monopoly.



MTC-00018561

From: James Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    The proposed settlement is not going to be successful. What 
needs to be done in its place is to require Microsoft to support an 
open, standards-body-based document-interchange format for all of 
their office productivity applications, rather than allowing them to 
continue to control the office productivity market through their 
control of de-facto ``standard'' document formats. This 
will allow real competition in the office productivity suite market. 
Also, there needs to be an appointed, single, powerful, special 
master: one knowledgeable individual with the experience to 
understand Microsoft's evasive tactics and the power to force their 
compliance with the terms of the settlement.
    Thank you,
    James Kelly
    7912 Horseshoe Trail,
    Orange, California



MTC-00018562

From: Michael Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, my name is Michael Cole. I live in San Francisco 
California. I am writing about the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I 
am against the proposed settlement. I think the settlement is weak 
and changes very little with regards to Microsoft's ability to bully

[[Page 26594]]

OEM's. Microsoft has shown little good faith in the past and the 
proposed settlement depends heavily on that good-faith. The 
publishing of documentation about the API's does VERY little to 
limit their monopoly. These API's can change at any time and don't 
even need to be documented well. How exactly does requiring a 
monopolist to publish how their product works equate to a remedy for 
their monopoly? In closing, I think the settlement has very little 
teeth and will, in the end, only secure Microsoft's position as a 
monopolist by providing a way for them to say ``look, I follow 
these rules, I CANT be a monopoly'' Please consider a more 
permanent, structural change to the company-a settlement that 
does not rest on their good-faith.
    Best regards,
    Michael Cole



MTC-00018563

From: Marion Bates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
In particular, I am concerned that the PFJ fails to prohibit 
anticompetitive license terms currently used by Microsoft. For 
example: Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems. A 
portion of the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively. Quote from http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html, Dan Kegel's essay on the PFJ: ``Microsoft's 
original operating system was called MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS 
API to call up the services of the operating system. Digital 
Research offered a competing operating system, DR-DOS, that also 
implemented the DOS API, and could run programs written for MS-DOS. 
Windows 3.1 and earlier were not operating systems per se, but 
rather middleware that used the DOS API to interoperate with the 
operating system. Microsoft was concerned with the competitive 
threat posed by DR-DOS, and added code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 
so it would display spurious and misleading error messages when run 
on DR-DOS. Digital Research's successor company, Caldera, brought a 
private antitrust suit against Microsoft in 1996. (See the original 
complaint, and Caldera's consolidated response to Microsoft's 
motions for partial summary judgment.) The judge in the case ruled 
that ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.'' That case was settled out of court in 1999, and no 
court has fully explored the alleged conduct. The concern here is 
that, as competing operating systems emerge which are able to run 
Windows applications, Microsoft might try to sabotage Windows 
applications, middleware, and development tools so that they cannot 
run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as they did earlier 
with Windows 3.1. The PFJ as currently written does nothing to 
prohibit these kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional 
incompatibilities, and thus encourages Microsoft to use these 
techniques to enhance the Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming 
those consumers who use non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to 
use Microsoft applications software.'' The vast majority of the 
provisions within the settlement only formalize the status quo. Of 
the remaining provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft 
from abusing its current monopoly position in the operating system 
market. This is especially important in view of the seriousness of 
Microsoft's past transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Marion Bates
    Institute for Security Technology Studies
    Dartmouth College
    Hanover, NH
    Phone: 603-646-0739
    Fax: 603-646-0660



MTC-00018564

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to insert my voice under the Tunney Act proceedings 
in the case of US DOJ vs Microsoft. I think the proposed settlement 
is a Bad Idea. I have been writing software for 10 years: C/C++, 
Java, Perl mostly on a Unix platform (commercial or open source). 
Microsoft products and their anti-competitive practices have caused 
enough damage. It is time to take decisive action and punish them 
enough to prevent future abuses. I do not think the proposed 
settlement addresses the issues.
    Sincerely,
    Damian Martinez
    266 S. El Molino, Apt #6
    Pasadena, CA 91101
    home: 626-390-6846



MTC-00018565

From: Eaton, Harry A.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Mircosoft Anti-trust settlement. 
There does not appear to be anything within the settlement that 
``denies to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation'' as required by the Court of Apeals. There are also 
a great many technical terms within the proposed agreement that are 
not defined, and others that are too narrowly defined, leaving the 
door wide open for interpretations that would render the settlement 
meaningless. Bill Gates'' own deposition showed an amazing 
willingness to stretch the meaning of ordinary language beyond all 
reasonable comprehension. Please review his video deposition while 
thinking about what he might think the language of the settlement 
means to him. The bundling of Internet Explorer into Windows seemed 
to me to twist the meaning of the terms in the original consent 
decree, and the Justice Department thought so too.
    The proposed settlement does very little to actually lower the 
barrier to competition and nothing to penalize the company for its 
misconduct. No doubt, Microsoft has already reaped billions of 
dollars additional revenue due to their illegal conduct, and the 
resulting additional strength of their monopoly position from their 
illegal conduct will not be diminished by the proposed settlement. 
It appears to be a sweetheart deal given to an un-repentant 
corporation that knowingly engaged in criminal conduct. There is 
also very little likelihood that Microsoft's future behavior will 
actually conform to what the Justice department thinks it is 
agreeing to. I expect that there will be endless litigation about 
the meaning of terms like ``middle ware'', just as all 
ordinary terms like ``bundled'', ``integrated'' 
etc. were disputed in the trial court. Minor modification to the 
proposed settlement will do little to fix its problems. It must be 
scrapped in favor of one that will actually serve to increase 
competition in the marketplace and really deprive Microsoft of the 
fruits of its illegal conduct.
    Sincerely,
    Harry Eaton
    6697 Buttonhole Court
    Columbia, MD 21044



MTC-00018566

From: Thomas P. Taggart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Thomas P. Taggart, and i am a 19 year-old student at 
Penn State university. Having followed parts of the Government's 
Anti-trust case against Microsoft, I am appalled to know that the 
court system, and our government would agree to such a settlement. 
It is a very horrible idea, that should not proceed any further. I 
put my faith in our government to listen to the people, and what 
they feel should be down with this settlement.
    Yours,
    Thomas P. Taggart



MTC-00018567

From: Perl Hacker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir:

[[Page 26595]]

    I do not agree with the proposed Microsoft settlement. It does 
not address any of the issues at hand in a significant fashion. 
Letting the current settlement stand amounts to nothing less than 
complete capitulation on the part of the government. Once, there was 
a vibrant, competitive desktop software industry. Now, the desktop 
is dead and stagnant. People are, for the most part, forced to use 
Microsoft's substandard crapware because the great MS used their 
monopoly to crush anyone else writing software for the desktop. They 
did it with Netscape, with Wordstar, with a thousand other apps they 
thought might threaten their profits. The desktop is dead because 
Microsoft likes it that way. Now you're probably being deluged with 
jerks writing on the behest of Sun or Microsoft, saying that they're 
Writing Out of Civic Concern (while their manager prods them on). I 
am not writing for either of those reasons. I am writing you because 
I am Damn Well Pissed Off. I am angry because my mother reboots her 
PC three times a day in order to do her accounting practice, and it 
doesn't occur to her to find something better or get something 
better because theres NOTHING ELSE. I am angry because Microsoft is 
the sole Ma Bell in a country that cant have an MCI or a Supra 
Telecom or a Sprint because Ma Bell owns all the copper wires, all 
the terminals, and all the equipment attached to it, and buries 
anyone who tries to introduce a competing product with its monopoly 
power. I am angry because whenever someone comes up with a Windows-
compatible operating system, Microsoft sues them, and the government 
complacently looks at this blatant anticompetitive behavior and does 
nothing. Bill Gates said it himself-``better doesn't 
matter.'' Dont let Microsoft get away with this crap. Read Dan 
Kegel's open letter here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html 
and learn why Microsoft does not deserve your pity.
    Jeff Craton
    Systems Administrator



MTC-00018568

From: Christopher Bengtson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    110 Francis Avenue
    Mansfield, MA 02048
    January 22, 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 was reached between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice. I was never supportive of the antitrust 
settlement against Microsoft in the first place, but am relieved to 
see that the lawsuit has been settled.
    The government now has the ability to turn its attention to more 
pressing issues, and can stop wasting taxpayer dollars on the 
pursuit of Microsoft. Both sides involved have spent way too much 
time and money on this, and I hope that the settlement will be the 
answer that we need. The economy is in the dumps, and one thing that 
could have a positive affect on that is a healthy Microsoft. 
Microsoft has agreed to enhance its communication with competitors 
so that everyone in the industry will be able to produce a product 
that is compatible with Windows. This will enhance the market and 
stimulate the economy.
    I support the settlement, and hope that it is approved as soon 
as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Bengtson



MTC-00018569

From: Shawn McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a joke; we need a settlement that 
will SOLVE the problem, not make it worse. A complete breakup of 
Microsoft into OS, browser, media, etc, with NO interaction between 
companies permitted (and strong oversight) would be a good start.
    Shawn McCarthy
    Bowie, MD
    Systems Administration Manager (Linux, NT and 2000)



MTC-00018570

From: Michael Peay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my concern that the proposed final 
judgment fails to effectively prevent or enforce Microsoft from 
continuing its anticompetitive behavior and as a result is of little 
benefit to competing companies or organizations and ultimately the 
consumer. I would ask that you do not approve this final judgment as 
written until it can be properly revised.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Peay
    Murrieta, CA



MTC-00018571

From: Robert McNeill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been predatory in their practices, ranging from 
threatening retailers if Windows was not pre-installed on computers 
to their practice of using secrets of the operating system to 
advance their own Office and Language products. They threaten those 
who would allow Microsoft's own products to work on other operating 
systems and try to force them out of business. Their harassment has 
gone on long enough. It's time to end this. No settlement where 
Microsoft is allowed to further their kingdom by giving away copies 
of it's products will solve the problem. If the company is not 
broken up into separate entities to allow fair competition, at least 
force them to stop suing people who make products that could 
potentially undermine their marketing domain. Force them to open up 
all the features of their product to allow fair competition. This 
case has gone on too long and has cost the tax payers and 
Microsoft's competition too much money. Please end this soon and 
stop Microsoft from advancing their kingdom by suing everyone who 
tries to compete with them.
    Robert McNeill



MTC-00018572

From: k c
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is an ineffectual slap on 
the wrist. If accepted, it will be a horrible blow to the future of 
the technology industry in the United States. Regardless of what 
they claim, Microsoft innovated very little technology in the course 
of it's history. Microsoft has stolen ideas, bought and crushed 
innovators, and done it's best to squeeze the lifeblood out of truly 
innovative competition. It's a guarantee that if Microsoft does it, 
someone else did it better, sooner. MS-DOS, Windows, DirectX, IIS, 
XBox, and .Net are all examples of technologies that were done 
better, sooner, by other companies, but were forced out of the 
market by Microsoft's predatory tactics.
    As a computer professional, with a computer science degree, in 
my experience I have found that a Microsoft solution is invariably 
technically inferior to it's competitors. I have also found that, 
with ever increasing regularity, I am forced to use the Microsoft 
solution because of incompatibility issues that have no technical 
justification, but are in place only to discourage the use of 
competing products.
    This nation was built on innovation and the ability to produce 
the best products. Our future in the world economy depends on it. 
The currently proposed DOJ settlement will ensure that we are only 
able to progress at a pace that Microsoft dictates, and in a manner 
with which they approve. If this settlement is accepted, I will lose 
a lot of respect for the judicial system. I could draw no other 
conclusion but that the judicial system completely catered to 
Microsoft's interests, regardless of law, and at the expense of the 
progress of technology and free enterprise.
    KC



MTC-00018573

From: rfrank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It seems 
incredibly weak for the damage that has been done. Worse, it doesn't 
seem to fix anything. How clear do the technical arguments need to 
be? Apparently they don't matter. I'm disillusioned but the whole 
process, and I'm guessing it's not too hard for my students to pick 
it up. Is the Microsoft monopoly so powerful that they cannot be 
checked?
    It seems to me, that with the proposed settlement, Microsoft 
emerges with pretty much the same powers and I'm guessing will 
continue the same business practices that have characterized the 
company all along. Count one vote against the Proposed Settlement.. 
Like I tell my students: ``You can do better than this!''
    Roger Frank
    Ponderosa High School, Parker, Colorado

[[Page 26596]]



MTC-00018574

From: Jim Pearce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a technical consultant based in Tennessee. I have been 
using microprocessors since my Cornell undergraduate project in 
1973. I probably was the first student at Cornell to design a 
microprocessor into a piece of equipment. I would like to comment on 
the proposed settlement of US vs. Microsoft. I do not believe it 
solves the illegal anticompetitive actions of Microsoft in two 
important areas:
    1. Dual boot of operating systems.
    2. Availability of source code to the ``free 
software'' community.
    1. Dual Boot. All computers have the ability to have multiple 
operating systems (OS) resident on their hard drives. As the 
computer is booting it can ask the user which OS he/she wants to 
use. This is very common among technically savvy users at the 
present time. Unfortunately, MS has limited its OEMs from offering 
this on the systems that they sell with Windows preinstalled. This 
the kind anticompetitive action that effectively keep the less 
technical user from experimenting with other operating systems. I 
believe that MS should be prevented from restricting its licensees 
from offering dual boot systems.
    2. Availability of source code and protocols. MS has said that 
they will allow businesses to view its source code and protocols. 
The problem is that MS gets to decide on its own who a legitimate 
business is. The free software movement is one of MS's principal 
competitors. If MS is allowed to shield its code and protocols from 
the writers of Apache, Linux, etc. then they will not, in reality, 
be disclosing this information to the people who can best use it for 
competitive products. I believe that a body other than MS should be 
the gate keeper to the code and protocols. This body should be 
independent of MS and be under the control of the court.
    Thank you for you consideration.
    Jim Pearce
    254 Babbs Rd.
    Lenoir City, TN 37771



MTC-00018575

From: Andrew Worcester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. As an eight year veteran of the computer industry 
who has worked for both competitors and advocates of Microsoft, I 
feel that the proposed restrictions are too narrow in scope and will 
do little to prevent Microsoft from maintaining and expanding its 
monopoly. I believe this will have and ongoing negative impact on 
the consumer and is thus not in the public interest.
    To improve the proposal, I would suggest adding specific rights 
of interoperability to free software projects. These projects are 
some of Microsofts key competitors, but appear to be almost 
forgotten by the currently proposed settlement.I also do not believe 
the current provisions for enforcement are adequate, and that an 
oversight committee with real powers of enforcement should be added 
rather then sending further violations back to the courts where they 
may take years to be resovled.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Worcester
    Hudson, NH



MTC-00018576

From: Baba Buehler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is wrong and a bad idea. The 
damage Microsoft has done to consumers and the industry as a whole 
far outweighs the megar, almost meaningless penalties in the 
settlement.
    Baba Z Buehler
    ``Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security 
deserve neither.''
    Benjamin Franklin



MTC-00018577

From: Jorgen Carlsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:49pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Gentlemen: Letter has been mailed .
    Jorgen Carlsen
    2 College Court
    Larksur, CA 94939



MTC-00018578

From: Stephen Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In accordance with the Tunney Act, I am submitting my comments 
on the proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust case. In my 
opinion, the settlement does not punish Microsoft or help 
competitors adequately. It seems like the Department of Justice is 
not interested in the case any more, but I feel that is is very 
important to the United States.
    I have worked in the computers/telecom industry for 15 years, 
and I can't imaging how different things would be today if there had 
been real competition. I believe that they have caused significant 
damage to productivity and the economy. Please reject this 
settlement and create one that can reduce further damage that 
Microsoft can do to the industry and the economy.
    Thank you
    Stephen P. Hill
    4431 S. Sacramento Ave
    Chicago, IL 60632



MTC-00018579

From: Louis Gerbarg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is insufficient. All it does is 
put in place slight impediments to Microsoft attempting to use some 
of its former practices. I feel that it in no way penalizes them for 
their previous conduct.
    Louis Gerbarg



MTC-00018580

From: Richard Otte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea. Microsoft is 
ruining computing for all of us. Please reconsider.
    Ric Otte



MTC-00018581

From: Ben Penning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I do not agree with the proposed settlement. I feel that it is 
not strong enough in its attempt to curtail Microsoft's monopolistic 
and anti-competitive practices.
    Ben Penning



MTC-00018582

From: Moeller, Karl
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea !!!
    Thank you
    Karl Moeller
    Network & Infrastructure Consultant
    SIA
    5210 E. Williams Cir.
    Tucson AZ 85711
    (520)790-4624
    ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a 
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
    Benjamin Franklin, 1759.



MTC-00018583

From: Robert Wills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to join many other voices in expressing my misgivings 
about the proposed Microsoft settlement. I am a developer, and I 
have found time and time again that Microsoft's undocumented APIs 
make it very all but impossible to mix Microsoft technology with 
other types of technology. Any acceptable settlement must require 
Microsoft to properly document all of its APIs and to not change 
them without adequate prior notification (as they always do, for 
example with their use of SMB networking protocols).
    Yours faithfully,
    Robert Wills



MTC-00018584

From: Larry Altes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am firmly against the proposed settlement. Microsoft should 
not be allowed to retain the profits it has made with its illegal 
actions. Any settlement should have vigorous enforcement with heavy 
penalties for non-compliance, which I do not see in the proposed 
settlement.
    Lawrence Altes



MTC-00018585

From: Ken Curtis

[[Page 26597]]

To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my extreme displeasure with the 
conditions of the Microsoft Settlement.
    Specifically, three sections are lacking:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    Additionally, Microsoft has continuously acted in a manner 
contrary to both the law and previous settlements/court agreements. 
I strongly urge the Department of Justice and the Courts to enforce 
a much stricter settlement with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth J Curtis Jr
    4 Centre Street
    Danvers, MA 01923



MTC-00018586

From: Jeffrey L. Fishbein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the settlement proposed between several of the 
states and federal government with Microsoft. Although I do not 
necessarily agree that the original court-imposed remedy-a 
breakup-is warranted, I do believe that substantial sanctions 
and reasonable oversight are called for in this matter.
    Neither is provided for fully in the settlement. I believe that 
the federal government-which represents all those hurt by 
Microsoft's criminal actions; but especially people like me, who 
live in a state where the attorney general refuses to protect the 
citizens from that criminal organization-should rejoin the 
states who recognize the inadequacy of the proposal.
    Further, I believe that the government should step in and try to 
prevent the ludicrous proposal for settlement of numerous private 
suits, that would actually allow Microsoft to extend its monopoly.
    Jeffrey L. Fishbein
    306 W. Snyder St.
    Selinsgrove, PA 17870



MTC-00018587

From: Chris Simoes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Microsoft settlement does not go far enough. As far 
as I can tell it will not curtail Microsoft's behavior at all, and 
my opinion is that Microsoft's behavior is anticompetitive.
    Chris Simoes
    Austin, TX



MTC-00018588

From: paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a developer for open-sourced software, I am extremely 
concerned about the recent proposed settlement to the landmark anti-
trust case against Microsoft Corporation. I feel that the settlement 
does not go far enough in providing a remedy for the incalculable 
damage Microsoft's illegal business practices have caused the 
industry I work in, nor does it adequately address Microsoft's 
continued anti-competitive behavior, and that it fails to provide a 
solution that helps to reduce Microsoft's ability to do further 
damage, even in the light of Microsoft's complete lack of 
acknowledgement or contrition. Particularly troubling is the idea 
that allowing Microsoft to place thousands of computers running it's 
operating systems and other software in front of students in public 
schools is somehow a solution to it's stranglehold on the desktop 
industry rather than a way to increase Microsoft's dominance. 
Microsoft has been shown to have acted illegally. The software 
industry needs the protection of the Dept of Justice from further 
abuses, not a free license for Microsoft to continue it's anti-
competitive behavior.
    Paul Smith
    President, Acme Communications
    2517 Remington Rd
    Raleigh, NC 27610



MTC-00018589

From: Robertson, Pandora
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Proposed settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00018590

From: Dennis Kelley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: The proposed settlement is a bad one; 
please reject it and have the DoJ and the states go back and draft 
something that will address the facts found in the District court 
case. A unanimous US Court of Appeals agreed that Microsoft had 
illegally kept its monopoly position by preying on other software 
developers and computer manufacturers. The bottom line is that 
Microsoft operated illegally, and any settlement or resolution of 
this case should make sure the company cannot continue its 
anticompetitive behavior. Unfortunately the proposed solution does 
not do this. In many ways, it actually reinforces Microsoft's 
monopoly, and does nothing to restrain Microsoft from acting 
illegally again in future markets.
    Indeed, Microsoft has already shown they intend to continue to 
piggyback off their illegally obtained operating system monopoly to 
crush more markets. As an example, look at the ``give 
away'' of millions of dollars of development effort in their 
Media Player, which is unnecessarily ``integrated'' into 
WindowsXP- and is targeted at the RealPlayer product line, in 
order to crush it, in the same way they did the Netscape Browser. 
Microsoft, unlike its competitors, simply rolls the development cost 
into their illegally obtained monopoly operating system, and 
undercuts the competition unfairly. Yet the proposed settlement does 
not address preventing this sort of monopolistic behavior at all. 
Remember, developing a media player, a browser and other software 
costs money, and Microsoft leverages their monopoly to mask these 
costs while smashing competition unfairly. The Circuit court in it s 
7-0 decision, and lower courts found this 
``bundling'' illegal and monopolistic, yet the settlement 
does not address this in any sort of meaningful fashion: it allows 
Microsoft to tightly integrate and bundle its media player, its web 
browser, and myriad other applications into the Windows Operating 
System, instead of competing freely against external applications.
    Also, the proposed settlement contains no provisions to remedy 
the unlawful monopolization of the operating system; nothing that 
will produce competition. Remember that the Circuit court ordered 
that a remedy must ``unfetter the market from anticompetitive 
conduct... [and] .. terminate the illegal monopoly''. the 
proposed settlement does nothing of the sort. Its attempt to open 
the ``API'' (programming interface) of the Windows 
operating system will merely reinforce the monopoly, not terminate 
it as the court called for. Also opening the API is not enough: 
Microsoft plans only to open a mere a subset. Complete and full 
disclosure of ALL the source-code is the only ``opening'' 
that would suffice to terminate the Microsoft monopoly.
    Finally, the proposed settlement does nothing at all to address 
the issue of effective remedy along side enforcement. the proposed 
penalties are ludicrous-an extension of terms that they have 
already violated is hardly a punishment. Fiduciary penalties must be 
applied, as well as structural ones. Also, the solutions proposed 
for ``competition'' are heavily dependent upon Original 
Equipment Manufacturers for implementation-the same OEMs who 
are partners and part of Microsoft's business plans (Such as Dell 
and Compaq). In sum, this settlement is wholly inadequate, and 
should be rejected and the DoJ and the States should be directed to 
follow the rulings of the Circuit Court and lower courts when 
crafting a settlement, instead of ignoring the findings of fact and 
law, and currying favor with an unrepentant lawbreaking monopolist.
    Regards,
    Dennis Kelley
    330 Pearl St.
    New York, NY 10038



MTC-00018591

From: Patrick Waites

[[Page 26598]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Here is my 
reasoning why. In the early 90's there were three major competing 
desktop operating systems: Microsoft's Windows, IBM's OS2Warp, and 
Apple's Macintosh. Then Microsoft launched into there current 
business plan and killed all competition. OS2Warp is dead, Macintosh 
has lost major percentage points in the market and very little if 
any other products have appeared. During all this Microsoft 
continues to reign and grow. There is Linux, but he average user 
will not use Linux. The learning curve is too high. Microsoft's 
business practices stifled the market from presenting competing 
Operating systems. Developers only write software for Microsoft. 
Other existing operating systems cannot run software written for 
Microsoft unless it is recompiled and modified. Even with sanctions 
made against Microsoft, Developers will still only write software 
for Microsoft. There are not any other Operating systems that can 
run these programs. That means that MS Windows will still be the 
only Operating system for people to use. The only way to stimulate 
competition in the market again is to some how make it possible for 
other operating systems to be created that can run software written 
for Microsoft and still be just as easy to use. There are not many 
if any candidates for this. I do not see how the current proposal 
will help this issue. All it does is slap Microsoft in the wrist and 
allow them to still be the only game in town.
    Patrick Waites
    Mobile, AL



MTC-00018592

From: Frank Iacovino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on 
the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html ), namely: *The 
PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing operating 
systems http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#abe Microsoft 
increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using restrictive 
license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails 
to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry. *The PFJ Contains Misleading and 
Overly Narrow Definitions and Provisions http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html#def.a The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft 
publish its secret APIs, but it defines ``API'' so 
narrowly that many important APIs are not covered. http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#def.j The PFJ supposedly 
allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware with competing 
middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' so 
narrowly that the next version of Windows might not be covered at 
all. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#def.k
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product- but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#def.u The PFJ supposedly applies to 
``Windows'', but it defines that term so narrowly that it 
doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, 
or the X-Box- operating systems that all use the Win32 API and 
are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''. http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#info.requirements
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#info.timing The PFJ requires Microsoft to release 
API documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible 
middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs to 
demonstrate that their middleware is compatible. http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#info.use The PFJ requires 
Microsoft to release API documentation- but prohibits 
competitors from using this documentation to help make their 
operating systems compatible with Windows. http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html#info.formats The PFJ does not require 
Microsoft to release documentation about the format of Microsoft 
Office documents. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#info.patents The PFJ does not require Microsoft to 
list which software patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves 
Windows-compatible operating systems in an uncertain state: are 
they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft software patents?
    This can scare away potential users. *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive License Terms currently used by Microsoft http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#isv.oss Microsoft currently 
uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from 
running on Windows. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#isv.atl Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Windows apps from running on competing 
operating systems. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#enterprise Microsoft's enterprise license 
agreements (used by large companies, state governments, and 
universities) charge by the number of computers which could run a 
Microsoft operating system-even for computers running 
competing operating systems such as Linux!
    (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.) *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#caldera
    Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities 
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems. *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#oem The 
PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#oem The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate 
against small OEMs - including regional ``white 
box'' OEMs which are historically the most willing to install 
competing operating systems-who ship competing software. 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#oem.mda The PFJ allows 
Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on 
criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This 
allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible 
operating systems to increase its market share in other areas. 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#enforcement The PFJ as 
currently written appears to lack an effective enforcement 
mechanism.
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Iacovino



MTC-00018593

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is the worst antitrust 
``remedy'' I've ever heard of. It looks like it was 
written by Microsoft and submitted to the DoJ for their rubber 
stamp. All it does is give Microsoft a huge tax break now, and an 
even stronger stranglehold on future computer users.
    The only way to bring any level of competiton back to the 
computer environment is to break Microsoft up into, at the very 
minimum, two seperate companies... one for the OS and one for the 
applications. That way, the OS side cannot mandate the inclusion of 
applications (like Internet Explorer) to stifle competition, and the 
application side has a genuine incentive to produce applications for 
other operating systems, like a port of Office to Linux.
    John Oliver
    System Administrator
    (858) 637-3600



MTC-00018594

From: Nikolas Britton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Thank you,

[[Page 26599]]

    Nikolas Britton
    2088 W. Galena Ave.
    Apt. 24
    Freeport, IL 61032



MTC-00018595

From: Lee Sammartino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a discrace. Not only does it not effectively 
dismantle the giant Microsoft Corporation, it allows them to 
basically operate the exact same manner with only a few 
modifications to their corporate structure. I use multiple platforms 
including Windows and other Microsoft Products, so this is not a 
biased submission. Yet again Microsoft will be able to buy their way 
through this, thus eliminating the effective competitive market that 
the antitrust laws were established to protect. A much harsher 
penalty needs to be sought.
    Sincerely,
    Lee Sammartino
    President/CEO
    Bourne Properties
    122 Mangano Circle
    Encinitas, CA 92024
    760-943-1768



MTC-00018596

From: ben capoeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an American citizen and a former Marine from the state of 
Washington (currently residing in British Columbia, Canada) and I 
oppose the settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department 
of Justice in the current federal anti-trust case presented against 
Microsoft. Microsoft is not accused of the vast majority of illegal 
actions that company has committed, they are not punished for the 
few illegal actions that they admit to performing, they promise to 
only cease those illegal actions that are no longer profitable for 
them, there are no mechanisms in the settlement to enforce 
Microsofts'' compliance should they decide to once again 
perform the aforementioned currently unprofitable illegal actions 
and the wording of the settlement gives Microsoft free reign to 
commit further anti- competitive actions against their business 
rivals. Given the fact that Microsoft has violated the previous 
consent decree they entered in 1994 there should be no reason for 
the US Department of Justice to believe that Microsoft will abide by 
a settlement that can be interpreted as not pertaining to Microsoft 
at all and has no enforcement mechanisms even if it is applied to 
Microsofts'' actions. I am grateful for the Tunney Act which 
allows me to make my opinion known in regards to this settlement the 
DOJ is attempting to inflict upon both the American people and the 
world. I am opposed.
    ben capoeman



MTC-00018597

From: Bediako George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mz. Hesse and to whom it may concern, My name is Bediako 
George and I am a developer of server side applications using a 
variety of languages on a variety of operating systems. I currently 
make my living working for a small start up in the DC Metropolitan 
area. Like most people in the software industry I have been 
following the saga of the Microsoft Antitrust case with great 
interest. I believe I have a lot of background knowledge as to the 
particulars concerning this case. I also have a very good 
understanding of operating systems, large application development, 
proprietary software manafacturing, and open source development.
    I am writing to express my dissatifaction with the current 
proposal to allow Microsoft to pay for it's past indiscretions by 
provided ``free'' software to schools. I fail to 
understand how this punishes Microsoft for the following reasons: 
1> Software has a massive initial development cost associated 
with its creation. After this initial cost the price for creating a 
new copy is minimal if not negligible. In fact it could be equated 
to the price of copying the software to a popular form of persistent 
media (A compact disk for instance). To allow Microsoft to 
``get of the hook'' for the mere cost of a several hundred 
thousand CDs and equate this to the market value of their software 
is silly.
    2> This ``punishment'' only serves to increase 
Microsoft's stranglehold on the operating system and applications 
business. By allowing Microsoft to grant their software to schools 
you are shutting out other legitimate software vendors, thus further 
choking the desktop software market.
    3> Any secondary goal involving teaching computers science to 
children to facilate technical learning in our schools will not be 
achieved. Largely because Microsoft's proprietary operating system 
OS is a secret. In much the same way as you would not expect a auto 
mechanic apprentice to learn about engines on Ford motor car with 
it's hood welded shut, you would not expect students to learn about 
application development with closed, secretive proprietary code. 
Since the source code of Microsoft's operating system is a secret, 
students will not be able to learn about the inner workings of an 
OS. For these reasons I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. 
There has been much arguing back and forth about what Microsoft 
should do.
    After much thought on this matter I have come to the conclusion 
that there is really only one way to punish Microsoft and make sure 
it doesn't happen again. Here is my suggestion:
    1> Require Microsoft to pay a fine of 1 billion dollars. This 
fine should be viewed as a fine and not as a donation. In other 
words Microsoft should not be allowed to use this fine payment as a 
public relations advantage. When the fine is paid the money could 
then be donated to the schools or something equally worthwhile.
    2> Require Microsoft to expose the META language surrounding 
it's Word and Excel document formats. Require Microsoft to publish 
proposed changes to its format immediately.
    I think the combination of these two points will sufficiently 
punish Microsoft for it's past indescretions as well ensure that 
it's monopolistic behaviour does not continue in the future.
    Regards,
    Bediako George
    Software Developer



MTC-00018598

From: Andrew.Tierney@huntercontrol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    More needs to be done to stop Microsoft becoming the sole owner 
of computer technology and software. It has reached the point where 
business says.... ``No body gets fired for buying Microsoft 
products''. I believe a lot more needs to be done to address 
this situation.
    (1) Force Microsoft to provide versions of its OFFICE and OTHER 
non-operating system products on other platforms. -Word, Excel, 
PowerPoint, Access, SqlServer, Project, MSMoney, Encarta for Linux, 
MacOSX, etc.
    (2) Force Microsoft to STICK with a STANDARD. Instead of 
grabbing a standard then modifying it to become proprietary.
    (3) Stop customers from having to purchase a machine with 
Windows pre-installed. A lot of vendors only offer machines with a 
version of windows installed, regardless of the fact you already 
have a license or would like to run linux or other operating system.
    (4) Force Microsoft to implement other vendors standards in 
their operating system. Ie. They MUST include JAVA, FLASH, 
SHOCKWAVE, etc... By DEFAULT. NOT as an OPTIONAL download.
    Thanks
    Andrew Tierney
    CastleSoft Pty Ltd.



MTC-00018599

From: Bluemage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public Feedback as allowed and required under the Tunney Act.
    The Proposed Final Judgement has many flaws, given it's stated 
goal of preventing Microsoft from further abusing their monopoly 
power and punishing them for their violations of the law that they 
have already been convicted of, that were upheld by the appeals 
court. Many of these problems have been noted by legal scholars, 
lawyers, judges, and laypeople, including such people as judge 
Robert Bork. But perhaps the single largest problem with the 
proposed judgement is that it entirely lacks any method of 
enforcement or punishment for violation of the agreement. There is 
no mention of any sort of fine, penalty, or other recourse if the 
agreement is violated, other than extending the agreement for an 
additional two years, with the same lack of enforcement.
    Lest it be forgotten, much of the current anti-trust case 
against Microsoft came about because Microsoft ignored previous 
settlements and agreements and continued the illegal and unethical 
extension of their monopoly, into other areas and by squashing or 
buying up any potential competitors, and keeping the barriers to 
entry as high as possible.

[[Page 26600]]

    Given Microsoft's long history of abuses, intentionally 
``breaking'' their software so other vendors'' 
software no longer worked properly, using their desktop monopoly to 
gain footholds into other markets, such as the web browser market, 
changing file formats or portions of code to deliberately make other 
vendors'' applications incompatible with Microsoft's, their 
restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs, their license agreements 
with companies that charge by computers that could run Windows, not 
that actually do, their blatant disregard for the law and earlier 
settlements, and their misleading and outright false testimony in 
the original trial, any agreement that is in the public interest 
must have clearly defined penalties and strict enforcement 
guidelines, along with rules that actually address the past history 
of Microsoft and will prevent future abuses. In all these ways, the 
current Proposed Final Judgement fails.
    For more in-depth and complete coverage of the flaws of the 
Proposed Final Judgement, the webpage http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html is a very good source.
    Nate Fichthorn
    Warrenton, Virginia



MTC-00018600

From: Roe McBurnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Software Systems Engineer and have been in the field for 
over 20 years. I would like to comment on the Proposed Final 
Judgement in United States vs. Microsoft. I feel that the Proposed 
Final Judgement is flawed and is not in the public's interest in 
that it does not protect OEM vendors who wish to ship Intel-
compatible PCs loaded with some Operating System other than a 
Microsoft Windows OS. The Proposed Final Judgement only prevents 
Microsoft from retaliating against OEM vendors that ship PCs that 
contain BOTH a Microsoft OS AND a competing OS. I would like to see 
the Proposed Final Judgement modified to include such protection 
from retaliation for all OEM vendors.
    Thanks for your time,
    Roe D. McBurnett III
    6 Hiland Dr
    Hillsborough, NJ 08844



MTC-00018601

From: [email protected]. dreampark.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I highly object to the settlement. In short, I agree with the 
article from Infoworld (RUSSELL PAVLICEK: ``The Open 
Source'' from InfoWorld.com, Wednesday, January 23, 2002). 
Require Miscrosoft to provide harware and money for software, but 
-DO-NOT- allow them to provide any Microsoft 
software or hardware to the schools. They do not need to control yet 
another market. Have they not done enough harm already? In fact, 
they continue to do even more harm, seemingly ignoring the DoJ case 
altogether.
    PGA
    San Diego, CA
    Paul G. Allen
    Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist
    Random Logic/Dream Park



MTC-00018602

From: terry dutcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust trial. Any settlement that does not force 
Microsoft to change their business practices will fail. Microsoft 
continues to bundle other applications into their operating systems 
and does not allow other competing software equal access. The 
classic case is IE vs Netscape. I am glad to see AOL/Time Warner 
pursuing this matter in civil court. This predatory practice has 
been continued and extended with the release of Windows XP. This is 
the kind of activity that caused the guilty verdict. The proposed 
settlement does nothing to change this behavior. A much stronger 
remedy must be pursued if justice is to be done. Thank you for your 
attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Terry Dutcher
    PO Box 59458
    Potomac, MD 20858



MTC-00018603

From: Adam-Lawson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Being an employee of and an active member of a team of IT 
professionals at Office DEPOT Corporate, running nothing but MS NT 
4.0 on all of our servers and Windows9x/2K on all clients, my 
opinion on the settlement is that it appears NOT to be in the best 
interest of the IT community, much less the computing community as a 
whole. I do not support punishing MS by further distributing its 
products to more industries, further propagating its existing 
monopoly. The settlement does not solve anything, much less serve as 
ANY form of retribution.
    If Microsoft is not punished to the degree they broke the law, I 
am not in any way in support of the settlement. This settlement 
appears to show the DoJ as giving in to MS and political 
pressures- not serving the country's interests.
    Please do not support the proposed settlement. It does not 
accomplish anything but to reward MS with expanding its market 
share.
    Adam Lawson
    Office DEPOT Information Systems-West
    Phone)562-988-5428 Fax)562-426-9288



MTC-00018604

From: Reto Reolon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir / Madam,
    Our complaint is simple. Remedy should dictate that Microsoft 
decrease monopolization, the current deal increases it. This is a 
fundamental flaw, and must be corrected. The people will not allow 
entropy in the states will to see justice.
    Regards,
    Reto Reolon.
    Technical Strategy & Partner
    +27 82 857 6770: voice



MTC-00018605

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please do not settle with Microsoft. The settlement, as reported 
in the news media, is not in the best interest of the Public. Please 
reject the current proposed settlement and rejoin with those States 
that continue to press for meaningful releaf.
    thank you,
    marv watkins
    16960 cypress way
    los gatos, california 95030



MTC-00018606

From: Sandy Alto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:37pm
Subject: AOL-what a bunch of money grubbers
    It's beyon my comprehension that any judge or jury could find 
AOL's latest case against Microsoft anything but vicious 
manipulation of the justice system. They have calculated this move 
from the moment they purchased Netscape, but have done NOTHING to 
improve Netscape to enable it to compete in the marketplace. Look 
into the resources they took away from Netscape after it was bought. 
This current move is ludicrous and just an attempt to further 
complicate matters for a terrific company (Microsoft) that is always 
looking out for their customers. It's time for the DOJ to put 
competition back in the marketplace, let customers decide what 
services they want from companies. Geez if Netscape was worth its 
salt, people would happily spend a few bucks to purchase it. I'd 
like to point out that there are plenty of other browsers available 
in the marketplace, not everyone cares to or does use IE. These 
charges from AOL are outlandish and should be thrown out.
    Sandy Alto
    19012 90th Pl. N.E.
    Bothell, WA 98011



MTC-00018607

From: Dean Kakridas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is simply not the proper remedy for a 
company that has done nothing less than bully the computer industry 
over the past 20 years. They have caused much harm to the consume by 
squelching software innovation and choice when it comes to Operating 
systems, web browsers, application software, and Java. Simply put, 
Microsoft needs to follow standards, leave OEM's alone, bundle Opera 
browser on Windows as well as Internet Explorer and let the user 
choose the best.
    Thanks for listening.

[[Page 26601]]



MTC-00018608

From: Derek Petersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am at work and have little time to write. However I think it 
is totally redicules what Microsoft has gotten away with. They've 
wiped out compitition ruining various markets. Netscape had an 
almost 80% market share using no ``dirty methods'' (making 
their browser available the same way as all others). Microsoft then 
bought a browser from a company called ``Mosiac'', Mosiac 
agreed to sell it to Microsoft only if Microsoft agreed to pay 
Mosiac royalties for the product (at the time most browsers were 
being sold). So what does Microsoft do? They release it for free. 
Just like John Rockefeller and the oil companies. Microsoft was the 
only one who could afford to release the browser for free at the 
time so people started switching over to that. Microsoft was able to 
simply ubsorb the cost, while at the same time screwing Mosaic. Then 
Netscape decided to offer their browser for free (destroying any 
chance of making a profit). Microsoft was unable to persway people 
to use their browser over Netscape or others. At this point it was 
about 70% NS, 25% IE. So in the next version of their operating 
system Microsoft not only included Internet Explorer with it, they 
intergrated it so deeply that users would be unable to remove the 
product even if they didn't want to use it. Essecially forcing their 
way into the market using their monopoly of the OS market. A few 
years later it went from 70/25 in Netscape's favor, to about 90/5 in 
Microsoft's favor. Then it caused anti-trust issues and they were 
deemed an illegal monopoly due to their actions. So what do they do 
when they release their latest OS (WindowsXP)? They do the same 
exact thing, but even to a greater extent. That is like robbing a 
bank after getting out of jail for shop lifting. Which is pretty 
much sticking your tounge out at the courts saying ``haha, you 
can't get me!''. I hope that you take action which will help 
this matter. The settlement with the DOJ was embarasingly lienient. 
Microsoft came up with harsher settlement terms in the past then 
what the DOJ settled with. I have already written much more then I 
planned or really had time to. Please excuse the spelling or grammar 
errors I may have made. I am trying to type this ASAP as I do not 
have much time right now.
    Thank you,
    Derek Petersen
    Please take these thoughts into consideration...



MTC-00018609

From: Fred Fenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, The settlement prosed in the case 
against Microsoft (MS) will *not* resolve the problems that prompted 
the case. This case was not about saving Sun Microsystems and 
Netscape from the abuses of MS. These two companies have both in 
their own way tried to do what MS has in abusing it's monopoly 
position in the market. Netscape was well on its way to destroying 
all other web browsers when MS came along and did the same to them, 
so I have ZERO sympathy for Netscape. Suns efforts to control Java 
while trying to make it a ``standard'' are contradictory 
at best. The problem that needs to be addressed in the MS antitrust 
settlement is ``how do we make the market more 
competitive?''. Breaking up MS won't work because you'll have 
2+ ``baby Bills'' out there pulling the same shenanigans. 
The antitrust suit against IBM was dropped (for good reason), 
because IBM had reformed it's practices enough to make the case 
irrelevant. MS has proven time and again they have zero respect for 
the ``rule of law'', and figure they can get away with 
anything through delay tactics, PR, and huge campaign donations.
    The current MS ``abuse of monopoly'' is no longer a 
Windows problem, but is an OFFICE problem. The Office Suite product 
line is the MS cash cow, and MS used Windows to create its Office 
monopoly. MS has control of the desktop OS market, and only time can 
erode their commanding market share there. The key to getting MS to 
behave is force them to make MS-Office run on at minimum 3 other 
Operating Systems with the same exact functionality as the Windows 
version for 10 years. Next they must also be forced to stop giving 
discounts on Windows to OEMs that ``play ball'' by not 
promoting non-MS products. If MS wants to make a donation to the 
schools as part of any settlement, then it should be ``hardware 
only'' for any monetary value. If they also want to donate the 
software, then it must be completely free and include unlimited 
usage licenses. This will allow schools to decide if they want MS 
products for free or Open Source products at the same price.
    Fred Fenner
    435.586.3582 Vmail
    720.294.2329 Fax



MTC-00018610

From: Jeff Bonner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Objection
    I object to the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v 
Microsoft Corp, Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) also now 
referred to as ``Track I'', and would like to express 
those objections herein. Under the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act (15 U.S.C. ? 16(d), the ``Tunney Act''), the 
court is required to consider public commentary before accepting any 
settlement.
    I should preface my comments by saying that I am a long-time 
user of Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Office; 
in fact, I'm using them to research the subject and write this 
message. Everyone can agree that Microsoft is a very successful 
corporation, and I am not against businesses being profitable. I 
draw the line at a company demonstrating themselves to be arrogant 
and beyond reproach, even bordering on flippant, when faced with the 
scrutiny of the United States Department of Justice. Microsoft is 
this company. They have shown time and again, regardless of any 
finding or judgment, that they will continue to do as they please.
    Although you are probably familiar with the following points, 
they illustrate how Microsoft has shown no intention of acting 
lawfully: *Microsoft and the Justice Department signed a consent 
decree in 1994 limiting Microsoft's actions until the year 2000. 
Even though later upheld by U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield 
Jackson in 1995, Microsoft essentially ignored it. Result: The 
competing Netscape browser is all but gone today, left with a 
dwindling market share. Consider this alongside a later discovery 
that various Microsoft software code had the phrase ``Netscape 
engineers are weenies!'' hidden inside. *Regarding Case No. 
2:96-CV-645 B; Dist. of Utah-Central Div., Caldera Inc. v 
Microsoft Corp., the court ruled in 1996 that ``Caldera has 
presented sufficient evidence that the incompatibilities alleged 
were part of an anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.'' The 
resulting settlement was confidential. *DoJ wanted to fine Microsoft 
$1 million a day in 1997 for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows 
95, in violation of the consent decree. A preliminary injunction was 
issued against Microsoft, who appealed and then offered computer 
makers old or ``broken'' version of Windows 95 without 
Internet Explorer. DoJ asked that Microsoft be held in contempt for 
failing to obey the order. Which brings us to 2002. Ostensibly, the 
purpose of this action is to punish Microsoft for breaking the law, 
and keep them from violating it again. But simply making them sign 
something, promising they will no longer operate illegally, in no 
way prevents them from actually doing it, as evidenced above. As 
stated in United States v E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co, 366 U.S. 
316, 232 (1966), the Court of Appeals said, ``The suit has been 
a futile exercise if the Government proves a violation but fails to 
secure a remedy adequate to address it.''
    Worse yet, the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is flawed in 
several ways. The two items that concern me most are:
    1. The ``Findings of Fact ? 28'' define 
``middleware'' to mean application software that itself 
presents a set of APIs which allow users to write new applications, 
without reference to the underlying operating system. Yet Definition 
J defines it in a much more restrictive way, allowing Microsoft to 
exclude any software from being covered by the definition, merely by 
changing product version numbers. For example, if the next version 
of Internet Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead of 
``7'' or ``7.0'', it would not be deemed 
Microsoft Middleware by the PFJ.
    2.? III. A. 2. of the PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against 
any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing 
Operating System (OS) but no Microsoft OS. Is it a coincidence that 
Dell quietly stopped offering Linux as an operating system choice on 
its build-to-order systems in August 2001? If a company of Dell's 
size can't offer a competing OS, who can (or will)? This would 
curtail consumer choice, since not everyone has the technical 
prowess (nor necessarily the time) to install a different operating 
system. This is especially true of users who, for the first time, 
are just beginning to use computers and the Internet.
    Before acting on the Proposed Final Judgment, I implore you to 
consider a fair alternative. The settlement sought by State of

[[Page 26602]]

New York, et al., in Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) also known 
as ``Track II'', before the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia, is a good starting point. The States'' 
proposal is different from the PFJ as a whole, but it contains many 
elements similar to those of the PFJ, with small yet critical 
changes.
    Very truly yours,
    Jeff Bonner
    511 Broadacre Ave
    Clawson MI 48017



MTC-00018611

From: Justin McManus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DoJ,
    I feel it to be everyone's duty to offer their piece of mind on 
issues like this. I feel that Microsoft is guilty, but I wish what 
was shown to the masses is that they are guilty of removing the 
single most important characteristic, creativity. Without 
creativity, we act as machines.
    Justin McManus



MTC-00018612

From: steve skinner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:11am
Subject: netscape
    I was a Netscape user as my first browser. I never paid for 
Netscape because you could download it and use it for free. There 
were other browsers you could get but you had to pay. How can 
Netscape complain about something they did to get market share 
themselves. This is really wrong!!!!! I would like a response to my 
complaint.
    Steve
    Skinner



MTC-00018613

From: Lee, Robin (ELS)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honors,
    The Microsoft settlement should severely penalize Microsoft for 
it's antitrust activities because it has created situations such as 
this: Bank of America is dropping of support for Quicken on the Mac 
platform. Not because of technical problems nor because Mac's 5% 
user group don't utilize Bank of Americas services but because 
Microsoft owns 95% of the market share. How can an alternative 
company thrive if services don't support its 3rd party software? If 
there isn't some regulation to this monopoly there will be no other 
alternatives to computer operating system other than the black-
market where customers will totally be taken advantage of.
    Robin Elaine Lee
    Elsevier Science



MTC-00018615

From: Keith R. Personett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I understand that the public has until January 28th to comment 
on the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust trial... with 
this in mind, I will try to keep this email brief, while expressing 
my full opinion on the matter. I am also urging my friends and 
associate to express their opinions on this matter. After watching 
this case for the past few years, very closely, I would like to 
register these comments on the proposed settlement. In my opinion, 
the proposed settlement is more than fair to the Department of 
Justice and the 9 settling states, and is in fact, a very gracious 
and extensive concession by Microsoft. Considering the following 
points, I would say that no harm was done to other companies, or to 
consumers, and that Microsoft is going far beyond what should be 
expected of them as far as settling this dispute...
    1.. Netscape was purchased for a very healthy price (by America 
Online), and the stockholders of Netscape made great fortunes on 
it's acquisition. Netscape is still a functioning company with the 
support of the entire AOL/Time-Warner conglomerate.
    2.. Consumers continued to get more value and features, while 
paying less for their computer operating system and applications.
    3.. Netscape didn't think twice about Microsoft as a competitor 
until Internet Explorer 3 came out and was reviewed as being a 
competitor to Netscape Navigator. Even at that point, Netscape 
didn't get worried about their share in the browser market until 
Microsoft released IE4, which was reviewed as a much more stable, 
much more full-featured, and much easier to use product.
    4.. Microsoft didn't invent the free distribution of a browser, 
Netscape did, and offered it for download from their website from 
the beginning. It appears to me that using a similar distribution 
method and pricing structure cannot be construed as using unfair 
distribution methods.
    5.. Every other Operating System on the market ships with an 
Internet Browser, Linux, Solaris, Several *nix variants, even IBM 
OS/2 ships with an Internet Browser.
    6.. There are other companies out there that remain profitable 
in the Internet Browser market place, the Opera Internet browser is 
an example.
    7.. Internet Explorer has shipped with Windows since Windows 95 
was released. While it was inferior to Netscape Navigator, it was an 
Internet Browser supporting the HTML specification. (I still have my 
original Windows 95 CD, and it installs IE2 with it).
    8.. This case was brought on primary through the backing of 
three companies, who are in fact, 3 fierce competitors to Microsoft 
in several key areas of Computer and Communications technology... If 
not for the lobbying and pressure made by these three companies, the 
Government would not have brought up this issue, and the public 
would not be watching millions, if not billions of their tax dollars 
being spent on this case.
    1.. Sun Microsystems, who is competing with Microsoft in the 
Server, Software Development, and E-Commerce Market. 2.. America 
Online, who is competing with Microsoft in the Online Services and 
Internet Browser Market 3.. Oracle Corporation, who competes with 
Microsoft in the Applications and E-Commerce Market.
    9.. The continued pursuit of this issue depresses the stock 
market and the economy as a whole.
    It is a constant drain on technical, legal, and clerical 
resources throughout the companies involved, the Federal Government, 
the Governments of all of the states involved, and countless other 
organizations that are merely sitting on the sidelines reporting on 
every word and phrase issued regarding the case. All of these 
resources would be much better used creating something instead of 
destroying something. With that said, I urge you to agree to and 
support the proposed settlement, and allow this issue to be put to 
bed, so that the country, the economy, and the citizens of the 
United Sates can return to productivity and profitability.
    Thank you very much for your time, and God Bless American and 
the Capitalist System.
    Keith R. Personett



MTC-00018616

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:59pm
Subject: ``microsoft anti-trust suit''
    To Whom It May Concern: I'm strongly against the settlement of 
microsoft. Microsoft was found guilty of monopoly dealings and 
should be punished accordingly. Not slapped on the hand and told to 
be good. If Microsoft gets away with this, they will be demise of 
this great country & economy. If you destroy the entreprenau in 
technology (the true backbone of this country), which Microsoft has 
done and is doing, you will destroy what this country stands for; 
liberty, justice and the American dream to have your own business. 
Microsoft should reveal their source code and stop crushing their 
competition. Sincerely yours, Edwin J. Lussier, 3085 Applewood 
Drive, Marietta, Ga. 30064



MTC-00018617

From: Erik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello-
    Just wanted to drop a line and say that I do not think the 
proposed settlement is tough enough on Microsoft. In my opinion, it 
should be split up or forced to reveal its code.
    Thank you,
    Erik Hartenian



MTC-00018618

From: Juan A. Pons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I beleive the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea for 
the american public. Microsoft has clearly abused the monopoly 
stronghold on the Operating System and Business Application market, 
and as such the American public is entitled to substantive remedies 
which this settlement does not come close to providing.
    Thank you,
    J

[[Page 26603]]



MTC-00018619

From: Thomas Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:59pm
Subject: Unhappy with proposed DOJ settlement
    I had such hopes that my government was going to stick by its 
principals and put a final end to the illegal and unethical business 
practices of an unrestrained giant, namely Microsoft Corporation. 
Unfortunately, it would appear as though the Department of Justice 
is for sale to the highest bidder.
    As American consumers, we look to our government to responsibly 
regulate businesses-particularly when those businesses are 
conducting illegal activities (as Microsoft has been found to be 
practicing for some time). I believe my biggest concern is for our 
nation's future. Microsoft's terribly inferior products-and 
their status as an unrestrained and unregulated 
monopoly-combine to constitute a serious risk to our nation's 
security (in terms of information infrastructure due to virii, 
security failures, etc.) and its position as a technological leader. 
Governments around the world are beginning to say ``NO!'' 
to Microsoft's monopoly and are embracing Linux, BSD Unix, and other 
Open Source alternatives. We are destined to become technologically 
moribund if the DOJ's settlement prevails.
    Thomas Long



MTC-00018620

From: Tom Raymond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Truly bad, truly flawed. I'm shocked at the Bush Justice 
Dept.-this is the kind of actions I'd have expected from the 
previous administration.
    Please, do the right thing. Punish Microsoft in accordance with 
the law for their violations.



MTC-00018621

From: Don Lundquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the settlement offered by the Bush administration 
is NOT in the public interest. It is unfair to other competing 
companies and does not address the real need to STOP Microsoft from 
practicing monopolistic activities.
    Don Lundquist
    Solaris Programs Mgr.
    Sun Microsystems Inc.
    Menlo Park, CA



MTC-00018622

From: ernest stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement''
    I am agianst the goverment in this case agianst Microsoft. 
Everyone knows microsoft is a monoply, So what. We made then a 
minoply. What about AOL,The biggest and the worst service , I had 
them ,They started Kicking me off line without any notice. I could 
be in the middle of this Email and suddenly I would be off line, I 
finally complained to them after being kicked off line 10 times in 
one day. The first person I talked to Asked me how the weather was, 
and to check with my phone company. After a few months of this I 
complained again. This time The lady who answered me back, Must have 
gotten tired of me complaining as she sent me a email That filled a 
complete page on my email,telling all the details of how everything 
worked and all the possible causes of my problem. She was being an 
ass, is this how they treat their customers.? I emailed her back and 
said after I complete a college couse to learn how to decipher her 
message, I would give her a better answer, but until then ,if I was 
kicked off the internet once more without First asking me if I 
wanted to contunie as they had previously done.Then I would no 
longer use the service, I am now using Msn, and I can tell you that 
i can spend an hour or more on line , Be inactive and still not get 
kicked offline. I get a cd in the mail everyone one or 2 months, 11 
last year offering free hours on AOL.,Turn on your tv and Aol is all 
over it with ads, How do they pay for these mailimgs and ads, they 
raised their price for Aol, Now they are sueing Microsoft. I hope 
TED Turner who now owns Netscape, and Aol, And Comp USA, and The 
alanta Braves and who knows what,loses, because he is as much of a 
monoply as anyone in this country. Microsoft gave Macintosh $150 
million dollars to keep them from going under, and now they are 
doing pretty good, What is Ted Turner trying to do, If he wins and 
destroys Microsoft, He can then Bring in his own System and will own 
the stores that sell them. Does he own a system, ``Whos trying 
to Buy linux''
    Stan



MTC-00018623

From: Kent Pirkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea and will not be 
effective in promoting competition in the software industry. I have 
owned and used computers since 1983. I have a Bachelors of Science 
in Computer Engineering Technology from Southern Polytechnic State 
University and have been professionally involved in selling, 
programming, and administration of computer for 14 years. Over this 
time I have seen Microsoft rise from the producer of a BASIC 
programming language found in most small home computers of the early 
eighties, to the producer of the ubiquitous MS-DOS operating system, 
to the producer of the market dominating Windows operating system. 
The popularity of Microsoft software can be most attributed to the 
popularity of the IBM PC platform. In many ways this platform was 
not the most technically advanced of its time, but, because IBM made 
it an open architecture that other companies could copy and build 
upon, it soon dominated the industry. Riding on the coattails of 
this dominance was Microsoft. When other operating systems of 
comperable capability and price were created (such as Digital 
Research's DR-DOS), Microsoft used its dominance to make its 
software incompatible with the alternative operating systems.Later, 
when the Internet became popular, Microsoft bundled their browser 
with their OS, which in itself, is not unreasonable, but, they then 
used their position to threaten PC manufacturers to not install 
Netscape, a competitive product. The result of this is the current 
situation where the Microsoft web browser has a vast majority of the 
market share, since its the only browser most users ever see.
    The danger for the future is that unless something is done to 
limit Microsoft's ability to use its market dominance as a weapon to 
destroy competitors, the day will come when Microsoft will be the 
only choice in computing. In this world, innovation would be dead. 
Currently, there is hope, just as the IBM PC open hardware platform 
allowed competition to flourish in the hardware realm, so do open 
source technologies like the GNU/Linux operating system, the 
OpenOffice office suite, and the Mozilla web browser make the 
possiblity of true competition in the software world possible with 
no one company controlling the market. But, there is a great danger 
that these technolgies will become useless due to the fact that 
Microsoft has such an overwhelming presence in the desktop arena. 
The majority of documents in most businesses are stored in 
proprietary Microsoft Office formats that are very difficult to 
reverse engineer and are constantly changing. The Mozilla web 
browser is in danger of being unable to view much of the content of 
the web due to proprietary extensions such as ActiveX controls and 
the .NET initiative.
    Linux is unable to make headway due to the fact that the two 
forementioned applications cannot fully interoperate with the 
proprietary Microsoft technologies. What should be the remedy? 
Microsoft should not be broken up. Such action would be ineffective. 
Forcing them to open source their operating system or to port their 
proprietary software to other platforms would do nothing to increase 
competition. The remedy is simple: Microsoft must make their 
document formats, Application Programming Interfaces, and protocols 
openly available to the public. This is how the Internet flourished 
early on, and it is how computing can remain innovative and 
competitive in the future.
    Thank You for the opportunity to comment,
    Kent Pirkle
    4740 Kelly Mill Rd
    Cumming, Georgia 30040



MTC-00018624

From: Bell, James (AZ76)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft is *GUILTY*
    As a network engineer with over 10 years of experience in the 
computer industry, a dyed-in-the-wool republican and laissez faire 
businessman, I'd like to submit my comments regarding the shameful 
Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft and to urge 
you to reject this settlement for the garbage it is.
    Microsoft is GUILTY of monopolistic business practices. You 
can't sugar coat this, and anything that doesn't reform or cut the 
heart out of those practices, not to mention

[[Page 26604]]

punishes the company monetarily, fails to solve the problem. Very 
little of what I've read in the Proposed Judgment affects 
Microsoft's ***confirmed*** monopoly status. It doesn't punish MS in 
any way by removing the ill-gotten profits obtained through illegal 
activities. Even the provisions designed to keep MS from abusing 
their monopoly status in the future are weak and full of loopholes, 
even going so far as allowing MS to *define* who their competitors 
are! Microsoft is GUILTY of monopolistic business practices. The 
findings of fact demonstrate that Microsoft has abused it's market 
leader status in ways that caused hundreds, perhaps thousands, of 
small companies to cease to exist. As much as I hate the level of 
regulation in business as a general rule, those rules are sometimes 
*necessary*. Break them up, fine them back to their pre-monopoly 
levels, force their API's open, or whatever makes the most sense to 
REPAIR the market they've ASSUALTED. Just please do not allow them 
to continue their ONSLAUGHT on the American people.
    Thanks for listening!
    James Lee Bell, CCNA
    Senior Network Analyst
    Honeywell Space Systems-Glendale
    (602) 822-4618



MTC-00018625

From: Michael Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a pathetic ploy for Microsoft to buy time until they get 
Windows XP into as many lobbying businesses as they can.
    Michael Taylor



MTC-00018626

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US Department of Justice: Antitrust Division, My largest 
problem with the proposed settlement is that the agreement does not 
do enough to remedy or even to stop the anti competitive practices 
that Microsoft uses, it just limits their practices with overly 
specific definitions and clauses.
    Anthony James Kitchin
    106 Hurst Creek Road
    Austin, TX 78734



MTC-00018627

From: Micah Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idead.
    Micah Cox
    ``Sell crazy somewhere else, were all stocked up 
here...''
    Jack Nicholson, As Good As It Gets



MTC-00018628

From: WJ Cordts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I strongly object to the proposed settlement of this case. Part 
of our Judicial System's function is to deter law breaking. While 
not actually able to stop criminal behavior directly, the penalties 
that Courts assign act as stern examples of what awaits offenders. 
This case has gone on for many years and the ultimate decision was 
that Microsoft was guilty. In these many years the defendant has 
shown little regard for the gravity of the situation in which it was 
involved. In fact part of the charges that this company was found 
guilty, was that it had disregarded a previous court order regarding 
OEM practices and Internet browser bundling. During these many years 
this disregard of a previous court order, Microsoft has reaped great 
financial rewards as it crushed competition with illegal activity. 
This cavalier attitude toward the authority of our Judicial courts 
is in itself offensive and dangerous behavior in a lawful society. 
Surely much sterner consequences should await any such offenders 
with such attitudes in a Federal Courts! As a parent I know that 
defiance in the face of correction or discipline is itself a grave 
problem. If I am lenient and ignore such defiance my children 
receive little motivation to modify their behavior. As our country's 
institution of wise elders that mete out correction and discipline 
to our society, I would hope that the court is like minded.
    Sincerely
    WJ Cordts
    721 Hagemann
    Bulington, Iowa 52601



MTC-00018629

From: Wismar, Andrew
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Proposed settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00018630

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to say I consider the current proposal for the 
Microsoft Settlement to be inadequate. I am not a zealot, and I 
don't hate Microsoft. I don't think Microsoft is evil, or anything 
like that. I think that they are a monopoly. A monopoly that has 
acted illegally. Having acted illegally, it is necessary that 
Microsoft be punished. Without punishment, there will not be 
justice.
    I have been reading through the finding of fact: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm In doing so, I have come 
across some interesting quotes that piqued my interest, such as: 
143. Decision-makers at Microsoft worried that simply developing its 
own attractive browser product, pricing it at zero, and promoting it 
vigorously would not divert enough browser usage from Navigator to 
neutralize it as a platform. <...snip...> If Microsoft was 
going to raise Internet Explorer's share of browser usage and lower 
Navigator's share, executives at Microsoft believed they needed to 
constrict Netscape's access to the distribution channels that led 
most efficiently to browser usage. Such anti-competitive activities 
as this, and a wide variety of other things can not go ignored and 
unpunished. Among other things, I work as a programmer. Recently, I 
have started working in Java. (the language from Sun Microsystems). 
In researching various aspects of Java for work, I have been reading 
extensively about Microsoft's infamous battles with Sun. At one 
point, I found the whole thing kind of amusing, but quite frankly, 
Microsofts actions, especially regarding Java, have hurt my ability 
to work effectively on projects in Java. It isn't funny. It hurts 
programmer's ability to work, unless they work only on Windows and 
IE specific projects. Also, because Microsoft used anti-competitive 
strategies to market Internet Explorer, and IE became to most 
commonly used browser on the web, my companie's website is optimised 
for IE. Because IE is in many ways incompatible with with various 
standards, ``optimising'' our website for IE has forced us 
to make it largely incompatible with other browsers. Thus, the 
incompatibilities in IE force users to use IE to browse our website 
(and many others). This makes it very, very difficult for other 
browsers to gain popularity. Such anti-competitve practices are 
hurtful to the economy, individuals, corporations, and as long as I 
am forced to work in IT, my sanity.
    Once again, I wish to make it very clear: The current settlement 
is *not adequate.* I strongly hope that the DOJ puts some proverbial 
smack down, and opens up an equally proverbial can of whoop ass. 
(please excuse my somewhat crude references.)



MTC-00018631

From: Phillip Pollard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:03pm
Subject: Tunney Act comment
    To whom:
    After having spent years of my professional career mired in the 
frustration and problems created by Microsoft's business practices, 
I hope that the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ reaps true 
benefits. The sad fact of the matter is that Microsoft's sole 
purpose of actions in the past few years have been solely to 
maintain a monopoly. Again and again, actual innovation, progress, 
and quality was throw to the wayside in favor of profits. The US 
Government, in it's wisdom at the turn of the century, realized that 
a monopoly's only purpose was to make money, and did not have the 
beneficial effect that the free market creates. I do not, for the 
slightest bit, feel that Microsoft has shown a hit of remorse in 
this case. It is blatantly a monopoly. A fact painfully know by 
those in a tech world. As I look over the details of the Proposed 
Final Judgement I see many a loophole that it would very happy and 
flagrantly use to continue it's poor practices. The definitions of 
Windows and such terms as API are INCREDIBLY limiting. And even if 
the judgement is ammended to be appropriately broad, I am sure that 
Microsoft will invent or tease some technical excuse to change a 
name and make it different. The fact of the matter is as long as 
Windows maintains a closed grip on it's Application interfaces to 
the OSes there will be no competition. The monopoly base needs to be 
broken at it's heart. Windows should be

[[Page 26605]]

made an open source product, including it's API. Microsoft can more 
than healthily compete as an Applications manufacturer.
    Phillip Pollard



MTC-00018632

From: Sara Thustra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To our ministers of justice:
    I strongly disagree with the settlement proposed in the 
antitrust case against Microsoft. It says to me, ``Here, 
Microsoft, you did a lot of illegal, unfair and very un-American 
things to get your business where it is, but we're going to let you 
keep all the spoils you've accumulated. From now on though, don't do 
that anymore!'' I say bull. A lot of consumers and businesses 
were unfairly treated by Microsoft, and no matter what my foreign 
friends keep telling me, ``screw everybody to make a 
buck'' is NOT the American Way. The only way we can send that 
message and keep true to what we stand for is to make sure that 
Microsoft is forced to /redress/ its past wrongs (symbolically, if 
actual redress isn't possible thanks to how much time has passed). 
And then, further, we have to impose very strict rules AND ENFORCE 
THEM. Per Microsoft, since their behavior was so wildly counter to 
what the American people deserve, I would like to see language in 
the settlement specifically mandating regular audits and government 
checks to make certain the rats aren't at it again-why should 
we trust them?
    As far as the rest of the settlement, for pete's sake, let's 
stand up as citizens and lawmakers and make sure these businesses 
know that they do NOT have a Constitutional right to make a profit!! 
They have a right to operate a business, so long as they do it 
LEGALLY, fairly and appropriately as determined by the rules set 
down by the citizens who buy their product. Personally, I would have 
liked to see Microsoft's Corporate Charter revoked, swiftly and 
permanently, along with that of every other corporation who thinks 
they can abuse the people and ignore their laws. But that's me.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Marie Lyle
    Detroit, MI



MTC-00018633

From: Ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    I don't think that Microsoft should be getting away with these 
kinds of business practices. Its very obvious they killed Netscape 
by ``bundling'' Internet Explorer so it could not be 
removed and shipped Windows 98 anyway without your consent. I think 
this is ridiculous and they should face severe punishment.
    Good Day
    Ryan



MTC-00018634

From: Emre Kiciman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to record my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement. It simply does not go far enough in ensuring 
competition in the computer operating systems, middleware and 
applications markets that Microsoft dominates. In particular, the 
settlement defines key terms such as ``API'' and 
``middleware'' so narrowly as to make any imposed 
restrictions almost meaningless. Also, the enforcement provisions of 
the settlement do not appear to have any powers to fine or otherwise 
punish Microsoft if it does break the terms of the agreement (short 
of involving the US legal system again).
    For a more detailed analysis that agrees with my views, please 
refer to Mr. Dan Kegel's analysis at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#enforcement I believe the outcome of this procedure 
should do nothing short of enablying true competition in the 
Operating Systems , Middleware and Applications markets. The 
settlement as proposed does effectively nothing to alleviate the 
monopoly powers that Microsoft has shown itself only too willing to 
abuse.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Emre Kiciman
    Ph.D. Student in Computer Science
    Stanford University



MTC-00018635

From: Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is horrible.
    Gordon Marx
    U.S. Citizen Extraordinaire



MTC-00018636

From: MEALER GEORGE T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Regarding the Settlement with Microsoft, please hear my voice. I 
feel this Microsoft settlement is a bad idea and in the poorest 
taste. The egregious abuses by Microsoft in the past and present 
have destroyed more than just a few promising small businesses. 
Microsoft is a predatory entity and has destroyed and prevented more 
innovation than ever they brought to the light of day. They also 
continue to play very shady and unethical if not illegal games (e.g. 
the Kerberos protocol) with many entities who are the real source of 
so many innovative ideas which power the modern computing world. The 
Settlement as it stands does not really address the problems of 
predatory behaviour by Microsoft in the past and present, neither 
punishing nor preventing future abuses. I realize that not every 
question has an easy answer, however, I feel that neither the issues 
involved in this case, nor Microsoft's guilt/liability have been 
adequately judged. Please, as the official judicial center of the 
nation our government stands to protect, do not let Microsoft off 
with the slap-on-the-wrist settlement that has been proposed. It is 
inadequate.
    Sincerely, voter and American,
    George Mealer.



MTC-00018637

From: Patricia Rupe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    I believe that Microsoft is a dangerous monopoly and should be 
divided. They are ruthless in their pursuit of buying and destroying 
any competitor that gets in their way. I also feel that the 
exclusion of non-profit organizations from the sharing of source 
code and specifications by Microsoft is a serious mistake. Why 
should Microsoft be the one to define what constitutes a 
``viable business'' and not the Justice Department. 
Eliminating companies like Linux and Apache, to name a couple, only 
diminish the quality of the products we as consumers have access to. 
The Justice Department had Microsoft on the ropes and then backed 
down. It has been apparent for many years that Microsoft is a 
monopoly and something should have been done long before now about 
applying the antitrust laws to break them up.
    Can you imagine the trouble the entire nation would be in if 
this monopoly is allowed to continue as it is currently structured? 
Computers have become a large part of everyone's lived and are in 
the majority of households and businesses in the United States and 
in parts of the world. We rely heavily on the operating system, 
internet, networking, security, etc. to keep up with both personal 
and business related information. Having one company basically 
controlling all aspects of this information and technology is 
extremely scary. Microsoft has yet to adequately address security 
issues. Every time they release a security enhancement, they 
immediately follow it up with several fixes to the enhancement that 
bandaid the holes caused by their latest release. You could drive a 
semi-truck thru the holes in their security infrastructure.
    Every release of every product from Microsoft is riddled with 
major and minor ``bugs''. I cannot fathom the number of 
people that Microsoft employs just to deal with fixing problems in 
each of their products. One would think that competition would force 
Microsoft to at least try to produce better quality products, but 
they are so large and powerful that any company that dares to 
produce a better quality product is taken over or driven out of 
business by Microsoft. So, in the end, everyone loses except 
Microsoft. I resent having to pay several hundred dollars for a 
product or product upgrade that is riddled with bugs. I cannot begin 
to count the number of hours, days, and in some cases, weeks that I 
and my husband have spent on our computers trying to recover data or 
wiping everything out and reloading the operating system and all the 
applications that we use because of bugs in Microsoft products. As 
long as they are allowed to remain a monopoly, I do not have any 
hope of this ever changing. I am including some comments from Robert 
X. Cringely (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html) 
on the subject of the Microsoft Antitrust suit that I

[[Page 26606]]

wholeheartedly agree with. You have probably received a copy of 
these comments from Mr. Cringely and others, but in case you 
haven't, here they are. The proposed Microsoft/DoJ settlement states 
that as part of the deal, there will be a three-member committee 
stationed at Microsoft to make sure the deal is enforced. I think 
Steve Satchell should get the position. With a background in 
computer hardware and software that dates back to one of the very 
first nodes on the Arpanet 30 years ago, Steve Satchell knows the 
technology. He has worked for several big computer companies, and 
even designed and built his own operating systems. And from his 
hundreds of published computer product reviews, he knows the 
commercial side of the industry. He is glib and confident, too, 
which might come in handy while attempting to keep Microsoft honest.
    Complaints about the proposed settlement, itself: Those who 
followed the case closely will remember that one of Microsoft's 
chief claims during the trial was that times and the nature of 
business have changed, and that anti-trust enforcement ought to be 
different today than it was when the laws were first passed in the 
early part of the last century. This is a fast-moving industry based 
on intellectual, rather than industrial, capital, goes the argument. 
Sure, Microsoft is on top today, but that could change in a minute. 
This argument evidently didn't resonate with the court, though, 
since Microsoft was found guilty. Well, Microsoft now is leaning 
this time on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better 
deal, but literally to disenfranchise many of the people and 
organizations who feel they have been damaged by Microsoft's 
actions. If this deal goes through as it is written, Microsoft will 
emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than before. 
Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement 
specifically protect companies in 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 like 
Compaq, for example. The Department of Justice is used to working in 
this kind of economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting a 
remedy that will rein in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the 
rest of the commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft's 
greatest single threat on the operating system front comes from 
Linux- a non-commercial product-and it faces a growing 
threat on the applications front from Open Source and freeware 
applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don't even exist. Section III(J)(2) contains 
some very strong language against not-for-profits. Specifically, the 
language says that it need not describe nor license API, 
Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting authentication 
and authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria 
as a business: ``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, ...'' So much for SAMBA and other 
Open Source projects that use Microsoft calls. The settlement gives 
Microsoft the right to effectively kill these products. Section 
III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It deals with 
disclosure of information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-
Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this section, Microsoft 
discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent 
Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet 
Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment Manufacturers 
(OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with Windows at this 
level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the legal definitions 
for these outfits, we find the definitions specify commercial 
concerns only.
    Also, under this deal, the government is shut out, too. NASA, 
the national laboratories, the military, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology-even the Department of Justice 
itself-have no rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such 
a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't run Windows. The 
government buys commercial software and uses contractors who make 
profits. Open Source software is sold for profit by outfits like Red 
Hat. I thnk Microsoft probably saw this one coming months ago and 
have been falling all over themselves hoping to get it through. If 
this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF IT. Department of Justice showed through the case 
little understanding of how the software business really functions. 
But they are also complying with the law which, as Microsoft argued, 
may not be quite in sync with the market realities of today. In the 
days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these laws were first being 
enforced, the idea that truly free products could become a major 
force in any industry-well, it just would have seemed insane.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments related to this 
extremely serious and sensitive issue. serious and sensitive issue.
    Patricia Rupe



MTC-00018638

From: Dennis Hayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I disagree with the settlement. I am just an individual user who 
desires to enjoy using my computer. I do not want to use Microsoft 
software, but to communicate with friends, it seems you have to use 
microsoft software. I like to use OS/2 and Linux, but because of the 
tight agreements that Microsoft has with hardware manufacturers it 
is hard to get drivers for the new hardware released. It seems that 
Microsoft sets the requirements and hardware manufacturers built to 
their specifications. Thus you have winmodems, winprinters and about 
everything win. To me that is a great loss. I enjoy using the 
internet. As I understand it, the goverment, military, with 
universities designed and built it to open standards for vital 
communications. Now with its power, money and PROVEN BY COURT 
MONOLOPY Microsoft is trying to close it down into it's own little 
domain. They need to be stopped.
    As a individual user it looks to me like the simple solution 
would to be to punish those found guilty. It is done every day in 
regular courts of law. The guilty do not get to set the punishment, 
why should Microsoft who was found guilty of being a monolopy have 
any say in what it's punishement is. They have proven by their 
actions that they cannot be trusted.
    Make them open up formats, so that any programer with the 
ability and desire can write a program to read Microsoft documents 
and let competion begin in earnest and see who wins. Make any access 
to the internet open with no private must use my operating system to 
again access to it.. Thank you for listening, I think Microsoft 
hinders inovation more than promotes it.
    Just a computer user,
    Dennis Hayes



MTC-00018639

From: Andrew Close
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i do not believe the settlement is fair, especially if Microsoft 
was found guilty of monopolistic practices. when the phone company 
was found to be a monopoly it was busted up into the ``baby 
bells'', a mini monopoly at the state level until recently. and 
when IBM used monopolistic practices and its clout to bully 
merchants and end-users into purchasing its products it was busted 
up and fined. mocrosoft should not get off with a stern ``no no 
no'' and then be allowed to pay this debt by giving away their 
software to schools and public organizations, thus extending its 
monopoly. please consider this and come up with a more just 
settlement that doesn't let Microsoft off easy or allow them to 
expand their empire.
    thank you
    andrew close



MTC-00018640

From: J. Greg Davidson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Having studied the proposed settlement with Microsoft, I am 
astonished that it provides no credible relief from Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices. Microsoft and its allies have damaged 
and held back progress and growth of the computer software industry 
with significant negative effects on the US economy. Microsoft has 
become too powerful and is clearly too unscrupulous to be rendered 
harmless as long as it stays a single company. Not only would a 
broken up Microsoft relieve the problem to our industry, it would 
probably reward Microsoft stockholders with increased value. It 
could be a win-win. The current proposed settlement is at best win-
lose-a win for Bill Gates and a loss to the American people 
whose rights are entrusted to the care of the US Department of 
Justice.

[[Page 26607]]

    Sincerely,
    James Gregory Davidson
    6231 Branting Street
    San Diego, CA 92122



MTC-00018641

From: James Salsman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems * Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to 
Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even 
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry. * The 
PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and Provisions 
* The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but it 
defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are 
not covered. * The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all. * The PFJ allows users to 
replace Microsoft Java with a competitor's product-but 
Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The PFJ should therefore 
allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with competing middleware. * 
The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines 
that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box-operating systems 
that all use the Win32 API and are advertized as being 
``Windows Powered''. * The PFJ fails to require advance 
notice of technical requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all 
competing middleware simply by changing the requirements shortly 
before the deadline, and not informing ISVs. * The PFJ requires 
Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs so they can create 
compatible middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs 
to demonstrate that their middleware is compatible. * The PFJ 
requires Microsoft to release API documentation- but prohibits 
competitors from using this documentation to help make their 
operating systems compatible with Windows. * The PFJ does not 
require Microsoft to release documentation about the format of 
Microsoft Office documents. * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to 
list which software patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves 
Windows-compatible operating systems in an uncertain state: are 
they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft software patents? This 
can scare away potential users. * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive License Terms currently used by Microsoft * 
Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Open 
Source apps from running on Windows. * Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows apps from running on 
competing operating systems. * Microsoft's enterprise license 
agreements (used by large companies, state governments, and 
universities) charge by the number of computers which could run a 
Microsoft operating system-even for computers running 
competing operating systems such as Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs 
were once banned by the 1994 consent decree.) * The PFJ Fails to 
Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities Historically Used by 
Microsoft * Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems. * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs * The PFJ allows Microsoft to 
retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a 
competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating system. * The 
PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs - 
including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software. * The PFJ allows 
Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on 
criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This 
allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible 
operating systems to increase its market share in other areas. * The 
PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective enforcement 
mechanism.
    We also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    James Salsman
    U.S. Citizen
    Mountain View, CA



MTC-00018642

From: Nick Richards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am Not in favor of the current proposed remedy. My reasoning 
is similar to that expressed in the November 5, 2001 letter from 
Ralph Nader and James Love to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly: http://
www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    Thanks you for the consideration,
    Nick
    1579 17th Ave
    San Francisco, CA 94122



MTC-00018643

From: Stan Heckman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If you let Microsoft profit from abuse of monopoly power, I fear 
that will encourage other companies to do the same. Those other 
companies will reason that the profits (to them) of their misuse of 
power exceed any costs (to them). This is inefficient. I like the 
fact that in the US, we let individual corporations, instead of the 
government, make most of our decisions about how human effort is 
allocated. But this only works if the goals of the corporations are 
at least close to the goals of the country as a whole. Monopoly 
maintainance by OEM licensing agreement is good for the company and 
bad for the country. It is also illegal. So why are we letting 
Microsoft profit from it, and teaching other companies that the cost 
of breaking the law is less than the profits from breaking the law?
    Stan



MTC-00018644

From: J.D. Meek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take a moment to comment on the proposed 
settlement that the USDOJ has accepted from Microsoft Corporation. I 
feel that the proposed settlement is unjust due to the fact that it 
imposes no further remediation than that which was already put forth 
in the initial judgement against Microsoft. To accept the proposed 
settlement would not only undermine consumer confidence, but would 
show large corporations that anti-trust behaviors will be tolerated 
and accepted. This is not the attitude that I wish for the world to 
see displayed within my country.
    Thank you.
    J.D. Meek
    Systems Administrator
    Franklin, TN. 37064



MTC-00018645

From: Kyle Himmerick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    It does not adequately address the monopoly issues at hand.



MTC-00018646

From: McQuay, Michael
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is a grave mistake for the government to settle for 
anything less that a breakup of Microsoft Corp. The only way to 
ensure that Microsoft Products (i.e. Internet Explorer) get ported 
to other platforms, thereby enabling users free choice of which 
Operating System they use, is to force Microsoft to break into at 
least two separate companies, one for OS development and one for MS 
applications.
    Thank you for your time.
    Michael McQuay
    Unix System Administrator
    Williams Communications
    4051 W. Munson Rd.
    Skiatook, OK 74070

[[Page 26608]]



MTC-00018647

From: steve steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement with Microsoft is more than fair. As a 
cunsumer, Microsoft has let the wat with the concept of ``a PC 
in every household''. Due to their Martketing vision, I can now 
buy more computer for less money than I ever thought possible.
    The current action by the few states remaining seems to me to be 
selfserving for the benefit of the state coffers with little reguard 
for the consumer. Enough is enough. Lets get on with product 
innovatation and let the market decide what has the products I want.
    Steve Arkowski
    17207 453rd Ave SE
    North Bend, WA 98045



MTC-00018648

From: David Kuntz
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to object to the terms of the Proposed Final 
Judgment. The largest barrier to entry for competing Desktop 
Operating Systems is file format compatibility. As a technical 
support analyst for several law firms I watched each of them 
painfully transition from WordPerfect to Microsoft Word simply 
because they needed the ability to easily exchange documents with 
clients, most of whom used Microsoft Office. I have also seen many 
small business forced to go through expensive upgrades to the 
``latest and greatest'' version of Microsoft Office 
because their clients have done the same, and the new version has a 
different file format, making it difficult for the business to 
exchange documents with the client. Please consider forcing 
Microsoft to open the file formats for Office, so that businesses 
and individuals are not forced to purchase expensive upgrades, 
containing features they may never use, just because 
``everybody is doing it''.
    thank you
    David J. Kuntz
    Network Analyst
    Philadelphia Gas Works



MTC-00018649

From: William Ezell
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement proposed is not appropriate at all. I 
have been a software professional for over 25 years, since before 
Microsoft ever sold Windows or drove a competitor out of business. 
Given past history, even a casual observer would have to conclude 
that the only thing that will deter Microsoft's predatory practices 
is a very large stick.
    Unfortunately, the settlement isn't even a very small stick.
    Bill Ezell
    47 Mountain View Drive
    Temple, NH 03084



MTC-00018650

From: Mike Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has 
repeatedly shown that they will use their monopoly position in any 
way they can to destroy any emerging competition in the marketplace. 
Any settlement must make it impossible for them to repeat this 
behavior, or they will repeat it.
    Mike Meyer



MTC-00018651

From: Geoff Baysinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've kept abreast of the situation regarding the Microsoft 
settlement and, as a computer professional who has watched many 
companies come and go, often due to the monopolistic pressure 
exerted by Microsoft, I do not consider this settlement to be in any 
way judicious or appropriate. The amount of money that this will 
cost to Microsoft will be negligible and in many ways the results of 
the settlement could be -positive- for Microsoft.



MTC-00018652

From: Edward Chang
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Case Settlement
    To whom it may concern, Microsoft anti-trust case settlement 
offered by the Bush administration and other states is not 
sufficient to stop Microsoft's monopoly practice. I am against this 
settlement, and ask for more sever punishment including breaking up 
Microsoft.
    Thanks for your time.
    Edward Chang
    BrightLink Networks
    Tel: 408-752-9250



MTC-00018653

From: blincoln
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading hundreds of pages of documents related to the 
Microsoft Settlement and many more in previous years, I think it is 
critical that the US not accept too soft a settlement for 
Microsoft's illegal, corrupt, and unfair business practices. 
Microsoft continues to this day to force clients into exclusive, 
anti-competitive contracts, they own the rights to a lynchpin in the 
digital infrastructure and they are using this to continually gather 
more and more monopolies. As a monopoly portion of the 
infrastructure, Microsoft should be required to document and provide 
openly readable source code for their communication protocols, APIs, 
as well as for many of their underlying operating system components. 
Microsoft should not be allowed to create exclusive contracts by 
which clients who want to buy or use products which are part of the 
monopoly are required to buy and use only microsoft products for 
other applications. This is a common requirement and one that is in 
place with large companies such as Amazon.com. Microsoft has shown 
itself willing to be as manipulative as any business can be, 
ignoring the fact that it has a unique and monopolistic position in 
the future of our planet. Strong measures must be put in place to 
force Microsoft to properly open their APIs & protocols so that 
real competition can begin in building a more robust digital 
infrastructure: one that is not wholly owned and controlled by the 
whim of a single for-profit business entity. Please add additional 
measures to the current settlement to improve enforcement of the API 
requirements and add Publication of Protocols to the requirements in 
this settlement,
    thank you,
    brian lincoln
    160 sunrise drive
    woodside, ca 94062



MTC-00018654

From: Joanne Eichhorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the economy has gone through enough and it is time to 
leave Microsoft to their own business, which they happen to do very 
well. The idea that Microsoft should pay damages to AOL/Time Warner 
is completely rediculous. By making the IE browser free they 
enhanced competition and the beauty of it is, we live in a 
capitalistic society, which makes this possible. Microsoft makes 
quality software that I'm sure even government employees use. Bill 
Gates is a true businessman and he and Microsoft should not be 
punished for the skill and competence they portray in the way they 
run their company.



MTC-00018655

From: Derek Deeter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: I don't think the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement goes far enough to remedy the monopolistic situation. I 
agree with the statements put forward in Dan Kegel's Web Page ( 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html ) and also his Open Letter 
to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement , with which I also agree. The 
proposed settlement does not go far enough in it's remedies to 
properly address solutions to the current situation.
    In addition, I would also like to add that I find that 
Microsoft's practices have stifled operating system and application 
competitiveness to the point where they are growing larger by the 
day at the expense of competitors. Netscape was one of the first 
casualties and the list goes on-there should be some penalty 
to be paid for causing these casualties, and this does not seem to 
be addressed by the current settlement.
    A proposed part of the settlement being considered was forcing 
Microsoft to supply schools with computer systems and software, but 
I believe this would be rewarding them for their behavior-it 
is quite well known that in order to promote software, giveaways to 
the educational sector produce loyal supporters of that software 
when they graduate to the commercial sector-this

[[Page 26609]]

would be a bonus to Microsoft a few years from now, and thus would 
seem to be a reward rather than a punishment. I would recommend 
against such a proposal if it is or will be considered again.
    Microsoft is so large that it can adopt a standard (HTML is a 
good example), then change it to it's own benefit without validation 
by the HTML standards group. An additional part of the settlement 
should say that Microsoft must abide by the published standards of 
the owning technical commitees and that any infractions are 
punishable by (fill in penalty here). This is another example where 
browsers can not be competitive-if execution of a standard is 
not consistent across applications, Microsoft has the benefit of 
providing more utility by bypassing standards or even promoting 
misusage of standards. By it's sheer size it is able to not only get 
away with this, but exacerbate the problem.
    In addition, Microsoft products when going from version to 
version (such as Office Products), utilize updated output file 
formats which are incompatible with those from old products. This in 
itself is a normal practice, but as a monopolistic remedy I would 
suggest that for an interim period, Microsoft be forced in their new 
products to also write the older file formats to maintain 
compatibility and allow competing products to be used without 
penalty of constant upgrades.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this,
    Derek Deeter
    Sr. Software Developer
    Derek & Cheryl Deeter



MTC-00018656

From: Christopher Bare
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My suggestion is that Microsoft be required to open up its 
proprietary file and disk formats. Formats for MS-Office files, and 
the NTFS file system should be made public and freely usable. Future 
versions should be required to be backwards compatible. This would 
allow competing software to interact easily with Microsoft software. 
In spite of what Microsoft would probably claim this is NOT 
technically difficult. Monopolies come about due to barriers to 
entry of competing products. A helpful remedy would be to reduce 
some of those barriers. We must reward those who provide useful 
products, and Microsoft has certainly done that. But, we should not 
lose sight of the fact that the ultimate purpose of our whole 
economic model is to provide maximum benefits to the participants.
    Opening Microsoft file and disk formats would go a long way 
towards allowing competing products to exist in a Microsoft 
dominated world, which is an essential step in bringing about true 
competition.
    Thank you,
    J. Christopher Bare
    310-268-9353



MTC-00018657

From: Frodo Underhill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick W. Neckolaishen
    14 S. Spencer ST
    Aurora, IL 60505-4420



MTC-00018658

From: Che J. Hsu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    With as many important issues that this country has to deal 
with, I was surprised that so much valuable time had been expended 
on litigating this case against Microsoft. Microsoft has, in my 
opinion, maintained its position of leadership in the IT industry 
more from the quality and reliability of its software, rather than 
any overbearing marketing strategies that it may have employed in 
its business practices. It is good that the case has been settled, 
in that the focus of the settlement encourages Microsoft to maintain 
better relations with its OEMs and software developers, as well as 
preventing them from exerting any undue harshness toward any 
computer maker that would want to install their competitor's 
software onto its computers. I am therefore writing in support of 
the settlement and hope that it will be sustained successfully 
throughout the review process.
    Sincerely,
    Che Jie Hsu
    Chief Consultant
    Computerists United Inc.
    (408) 942-8725



MTC-00018659

From: Syrus Nemat-Nasser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft settlement. I am a US Citizen, 
and I rely on computers for my livelihood. I believe that 
Microsoft's abuse of it's operating system monopoly on the PC 
platform has caused harm to the free market and to consumers. The 
proposed settlement is woefully insufficient.
    With kind regards,
    Syrus



MTC-00018660

From: user5
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:13pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement
    I am a strong proponent of a free-market society, however I also 
understand that certain entities have in the past, do at present and 
will in the future take advantage of the laws in existance as well 
as jumps in technology to advance the interests of the entities to 
the detriment of the American People. President Theodore Roosevelt 
understood this and observed the ravages of unrestricted mining and 
de-forestation of our lands. He also understood how the colusion 
between the Railroad, Steel and Coal barons exacerbated the 
problems. Both he and the United States Courts acted accordingly. 
The purpose of Anti-Trust legislation is to protect the national 
interests as relates to Public Safety, National Security and the 
rights of the people to pursue their own wealth and happiness. 
National Security does not simply relate to Department of Defense 
issues. When our economy suffers, so does the ability of the nation 
to raise itself up to provide for a defense. If we are weakened 
fiscally, we are weakened defensively.
    Microsoft Corporation has used it's influence with manufacturers 
to make it's own desktop program virtually the sole desktop on 
personnal and business computers around the world. It is my belief 
that they also incorate data into the desktop program to cause 
competitors data management systems to crash. I have had, in 
personnal, corporate and government service, the absolute pleasure 
of working with systems that are not of Microsoft origin. When not 
linked into Microsoft programs, they seem to run flawlessly. I have 
also had the misfortune of being forced in my government employment 
of having to use Microsoft applications which crash, lose data or 
are so extraordinarilly complex as to have to have expensive 
training to learn to accomplish tasks that were relatively simple to 
initiate with old programs like D-Base III, Corel Word-Perfect and 
Lotus Approach (The relative Microsoft Applications being Access, 
Word and Access). To give you an example, the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania uses the Lotus programs Approach and Dominoe to track 
Pennsylvania Drivers'' records. In all other State Agencies we 
are required to use Microsoft Office applications. From personal 
experience in the Department of Corrections, computer users need 
continuing re-education

[[Page 26610]]

in Microsoft products just to keep abreast of the changes (changes I 
may add only in the way one must use the product, not improvements 
in efficiency or additional uses). There are several problems 
associated with having so much of the nations'' business 
conducted through a sole source as well. With the millions of lines 
of code embedded in the programs being utilized by virtually every 
office and home in America, either the management or individual 
programmers could implant a time bomb of sorts to wipe out the 
entire nations computing capability at a given time or to mine 
information detrimental to individuals, corporations or the nation 
from computers around the country. I want to keep this short and 
readable, so I will close this letter with my feelings on the 
proposed settlement; I do NOT support it. There is plenty of 
precedent which the Department of Justice and the Courts should be 
able to rely upon and the appropriate arguements made to justify 
eliminating the restraint abilities that Microsoft has made against 
it's competitors ability to bring their products to market. Even if 
the elimination were to be for a limited time and of sufficient 
strength to allow competitors to get their products onto the same 
machines with Microsoft Products so that the consumer could decide, 
I would be much more pleased. There is no denying that Microsoft is 
a monopolistic entity and uses the advantage it has gained to 
restrict the competition. No inteligent individual could determine 
otherwise. There is also no denying the potential hazards such a 
monopoly poses to the security of our nation and to the privacy 
rights of citizens and the nation.
    Thank you
    Cris Dush
    RD#1, Box 169
    Brookville, Pa.



MTC-00018661

From: John Bonevich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
trial. The proposed settlement does not fully redress the actions 
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their ability to 
commit similar actions in the future. The vast majority of the 
provisions within the settlement only formalize the status quo. Of 
the remaining provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft 
from abusing its current monopoly position in the operating system 
market. This is especially important in view of the seriousness of 
Microsoft's past transgressions. Most important, the proposed 
settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's previous actions. 
There are no provisions that correct or redress their previous 
abuses. They only prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. 
This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a 
person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from 
those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people.
    Sincerely,
    John Bonevich



MTC-00018662

From: Carl Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement. It does nothing to 
correct the wrongs that have been done. It actually increases 
Microsoft's strangle hold on the desktop software market. While the 
donation of hardware is good, it should be required that no 
Microsoft software be included. If it is, then the future upgrade 
path for these schools, who by definition can not afford it, 
involves putting money directly back into Microsoft's already 
bulging pockets. Microsoft has acted like a drug dealer for years, 
and this is just another example of this behaviour. The first hit is 
free, then after that they have another lifelong addict.
    Furthermore, a ``donation'' of software costs 
Microsoft no more than the cost of reproducing CD's, while they can 
claim settlement value of the maximum retail price per unit. 
Allowing their own software to form any part of the monetary value 
of the settlement is quite simply giving them a license to print 
money. As part of a settlement of a case in which they have already 
been found guilty, this is completely ridiculous, at the very least. 
Open source software has virtually no upgrade cost. But more 
importantly, if students learn on proprietary systems, all they can 
ever learn to be is computer operators. They can never learn how 
software really works because they can't look under the hood. Open 
source software is an unquestionably superior learning tool. The 
settlement proposal should either be thrown out completely, or 
extensively reworked, to ensure that Microsoft gets no long term 
gain from a settlement which should be giving them a large long term 
loss.
    Carl Brown
    Whitefield, NH, USA



MTC-00018663

From: Kerry Crouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I firmly believe Microsoft is quite guilty of monopolistic 
practices. While I don't believe inclusion of additionally features 
into the operating system, (such as Internet Explorer) is 
particularly monopolistic, forcing computer distributers and 
manufacturers to include what they want don't want (or not include 
what they do want) seems to me to be symptoms of a monopoly. Selling 
a previous version of an operating system at substantially more 
money to force vendors to use a new operating system and users to 
use a newer operating system (whether anyone wants to or not) is, to 
me, another symptom of a monopoly. At one time, Microsoft offered 
free support for MS-Office products. Since the competition is no 
longer there, the free support is not there. The lack of free 
support seems to be more than just a coincidence. While I do believe 
Microsoft's competitors, in their statements about Microsoft, 
exhibit quite a bit of envy at Microsoft's position, there is also 
truth in what they say. While I think that breaking up Microsoft 
into separate companies, (3 or 4) would be appropriate, I don't 
think a breakup in and of itself would stop Microsoft from being 
monopolistic. The agreements Microsoft sets up with distributors and 
customers should NOT be allowed to be exclusive for Microsoft. 
Companies should not get discounts for using only Microsoft 
software. Getting a discount for using above a certain number of 
Microsoft packages or dollar amount is reasonable only as long as 
the discounts apply to everyone everywhere.
    Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
    Kerry Crouse, 3 Kerry Lane, Nashua, NH 03062
    Telephone: 603-888-6973 Cell Phone: 
603-512-0774



MTC-00018664

From: Kinser, Jeremy
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading the proposed settlement details, I am very very 
concerned about the situation. I think this settlement is a very bad 
idea and does not take into consideration the rights of consumers 
and competing companies. This settlement makes it nearly impossible 
for a small bussiness or group of programmers to come up with 
software that will run with windows without having to pay royalties. 
The bottom line is that Microsoft needs to conform to 
``Standards'' and these standards need to be open to the 
public. If this doesn't happen it will stunt the creativity of 
computing and will hold us down for another 10 years.
    Jeremy Kinser
    INHS Web Development Analyst
    (509) 232-8253



MTC-00018665

From: Alex Levy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I am writing to oppose the settlement proposed for the anti-
trust trial against Microsoft. The settlement, as it stands, would 
allow Microsoft to continue anti-competitive practices against its 
largest competitor: open source software. This is software that is 
developed by a community, rather than a commercial organization, and 
projects developed in this way would not be eligible to benefit from 
the proposed remedies. << 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 
>>-Robert X. Cringely I implore the courts to reject any 
settlement that would allow Microsoft to continue its 
anticompetitive practices against any

[[Page 26611]]

software system, whether it be commercial or not.
    Thank you.
    Alex Levy
    Tel: 617.835.0778
    ``Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing 
what is right.'' -Salvor Hardin



MTC-00018666

From: James Linen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-
    Microsoft must be held to the same standards and punishments as 
any other company successfully prosecuted under anti-trust laws for 
monopolistic behavior, period. This settlement does the opposite. 
Rather than punishing Microsoft for its behavior, it rewards it, 
particularly in the education sector. Do not allow this double 
standard to continue.
    James Linen



MTC-00018667

From: Kevin Geraghty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial stinks. 
It fails to redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
and does nothing to inhibit their ability to commit similar actions 
in the future. The vast majority of the provisions within the 
settlement only formalize the status quo. Of the remaining 
provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing 
its current monopoly position in the operating system market. This 
is especially important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's 
past transgressions. While the Court's desire that a settlement be 
reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust 
settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected 
is compounded.
    Kevin M Geraghty
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00018668

From: Jesse Fuzi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I am normally an extreme pacifist, I am finding it very 
difficult to not feel angered by this proposed settlement to the 
Microsoft case. I have followed the case against Microsoft for 
years, since the monopoly it holds over desktop operating systems 
impacts my work on a daily basis. To find that the proposed remedy 
contains almost no controls over the future practices of a company 
that has twice been convicted of illegal actions seems shocking. 
That there are no punishments included in this makes me wonder why 
it is called a ``remedy'' for the illegal things they were 
convicted of doing. How can this be? I urge you to reconsider this 
proposed remedy, and to find a solution that does actually punish 
Microsoft for what it has done, and draw some guidelines to regulate 
how it operates in the future.
    Thank you,
    Jess Fuzi
    1040 Elliott St. SE
    Grand Rapids, MI 49507
    Database Administrator-Grand Rapids Community College



MTC-00018669

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. After reviewing the proposal, it is 
my belief that it is insufficient to curtail Microsoft's unethical 
business practices which are hurting the computer industry. One 
particular change I recommend is that Microsoft be required to 
publically release on the Internet full documentation for all of 
it's API's and file formats, such as those used by Microsoft Office. 
This would allow competitors to create software that is compatible 
with Microsoft's.
    Sincerely,
    Michael E Ferry
    IT Support



MTC-00018670

From: Ken Farwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is not a good idea, this will hurt America in a lot of 
ways. regards
    Kem



MTC-00018671

From: tz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not in favor of the Microsoft Settlement. The last time 
there was an agreement-the consent decree-they didn't 
bundle, they integrated. Microsoft and their lawyers have insured 
that they can continue the worst of their monopolistic practices. At 
best, I may have to wait years for access to vital information while 
whatever board appointed argues whether I need access, and by the 
time they decide it will be irrelevant-I have no fast appeals 
or the equivalent of an injunctive relief. Second, they have added 
``Digital Rights Management'' as something they can 
completely avoid saying anything about-even under NDA or other 
similar structure. Then they can simply add some DRM to Word, Excel, 
IE, and every part of the operating system-much as they did 
the oil-and-water DLLs so Internet Explorer couldn't be removed from 
Windows. Also, if I write a driver, and say support Apple or Linux, 
they could simply refuse to sign my windows drivers and not give a 
reason-The drivers could be better than any of theirs, but 
they could argue length, quality, ``we're too busy, but should 
have them signed in 2007''. Go back and reread the emails and 
the documents made public after the Caldera (DRDOS) antitrust 
suit-Microsoft isn't trustworthy so you need a very broad or 
structural agreement. Anything with Microsoft written loopholes will 
mean all the effort which has been spent up to now will be in vein. 
Declaring defeat when you have won the case would be a terrible 
waste of the taxpayer dollars spent thus far- those costs are 
sunk, and the DoJ won. Now use that victory.



MTC-00018672

From: Bob Ruddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
More importantly, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions redress their 
previous abuses or compensate the affected parties. This, in my 
opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. The provisions 
within the settlement only formalize the status quo in their 
strictest interpretation and at worst increase the monopoly power of 
Microsoft. None of the provisions effectively prohibit Microsoft 
from abusing its monopoly position in the operating system market. 
This is especially important in view of the seriousness of 
Microsoft's past transgressions. If a person or organization is able 
to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts, and then receive as 
a punishment instructions not to commit those acts again, there is 
no incentive to follow those instructions. That is not justice. 
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached quickly is 
understandable, it is wrong to approve an unjust settlement merely 
for the sake of expediency.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Ruddy
    611 Wharton Drive
    Newark, De 19711



MTC-00018673

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a career software engineer, I must say I am extremely 
dissatisfied in the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust 
Settlement. There are no penalties for the antitrust behavior that 
Microsoft has exhibited in the last 10 years. In fact, the proposed 
settlement goes to further Microsoft's exposure in a place it 
historically has been second to it's only consumer competition, 
Apple. I believe that the settlement does not go far enough to 
punish and in fact furthers Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    Thanks,
    Rodney Lester
    2 Silkleaf
    Irvine, CA 92614
    (949)559-4670



MTC-00018674

From: Dylan Fitterer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to any and all legislation or settlements that 
restrict(s) Microsoft (or any

[[Page 26612]]

other persuasive actor) in any way. It has committed no coercion and 
should not be punished.
    Dylan Fitterer



MTC-00018675

From: Jeff Teitel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
case is a bad idea.
    Jeffrey Teitel
    1314 Rhode Island Ave NW
    Washington, DC 20005
    Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little 
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin 
Franklin



MTC-00018676

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:07pm
    To whom it may concern,
    Really there is only one player in the desktop operating system 
business- Microsoft. All many people are asking for is an 
alternative to Microsoft. That alternative would be in the form of a 
product (Linux) and leverage (to pressure Microsoft to make better 
products/services at reasonable prices). With a monopoly as huge as 
Microsoft, it is ironic, but also logical, that the only real 
competition could come from grass roots and not business.
    Microsoft should make it's code for things like .doc files made 
public so that documents written with MS Word can be read accurately 
on machines running Linux. Microsoft should port MS Office to Linux. 
A decision to use a non-MS operating system should not cut the user 
off from all other MS products. Microsoft's insulting interpretation 
to the DOJ's charge of monopolism was to deepen the monopoly by 
giving away software. They did not ``give away'' anything 
- they are cultivating clients. They are selling complete dependence 
on Microsoft products. Use Microsoft or do without computers is no 
choice at all. Things that are important to me:
    1. Quality operating system. One thing that ensures quality is 
choice. Some MS products are good but many have many 
problems-where is the incentive to improve if Microsoft makes 
the only viable x86 OS around? I would rather make my living having 
clients tap into the many and varied resources that Linux has to 
offer, than having them endlessly re-boot MS operating suystems.
    2. Choice of operating system without changing hardware. Apple 
needs different hardware. On x86 hardware the only real choices 
(other than old/unsupported OS/2) are Windows and Linux. Microsoft 
is working hard to ensure that Linux is not a choice, by buying up 
the Internet and making it inaccessible to any platform other than 
Windows.
    3. Competitively priced operating system. Their cheapest OS is a 
hundreds of dollars (out-of-ime with the present 
economy)-Linux's cheapest OS is free. Miscellaneous 
complaints: Microsoft recently purchased SGI 3D technology which 
could be used to pressure hardware vendors to drop support for 
OpenGL. Not so recently, Microsoft threatened to withdraw support 
for MMX if Intel did not drop NSP software development MS possibly 
introduced error codes into-and possibly 
sabotaged-Apple's Quick Time media. playback software.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Aitken



MTC-00018677

From: Whitney Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement of the antitrust case 
against Microsoft is a bad idea, and I request that the United 
States not settle. In the findings of fact in this case (which are 
no longer disputed), the court found that Microsoft clearly 
exercised monopoly power; I am dismayed that they might be allowed 
to do so without substantive penalty. Reading the proposed 
settlement, I saw nothing more severe than behavioral restrictions 
of the sort which Microsoft has repeatedly circumvented and violated 
outright in the past. I found particularly audacious the proposal 
that Microsoft should be allowed to introduce its product into 
schools. Gaining market share by selling to schools has, since long 
before Windows was written, been Apple's most successful strategy. 
Even now, education is the only market where Apple can still compete 
with Microsoft. Would it not be the very definition of predatory 
pricing to allow Microsoft to give away operating system software 
into this market? As a Microsoft Certified Professional, I see first 
hand how monopoly power has degraded the quality of Microsoft's 
products. I see first hand how they raise technological barriers to 
interoperability to raise barriers to entry in application software 
markets. As an American, I am appalled that Microsoft's flagrantly 
criminal behaviors may go without remedy. I am dismayed that my 
government would back away from a legal challenge to a company whose 
deep pocket has already crushed so much opposition, and I wonder why 
I pay taxes if not to protect American industry from predators like 
Microsoft. This is the single most important issue on which I will 
vote in the years to come.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Whitney Williams
    Austin, TX



MTC-00018678

From: Howard Roth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft:
    Attached is a letter expressing my opinion on the pending 
settlement of the Microsoft case. I appreciate your consideration.
    January 23, 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 support for the pending Microsoft 
settlement. After an extensive legal action, it's definitely time to 
close this case and get back to focusing on more pressing issues.
    My understanding of this case leads me to believe that the terms 
agreed upon even exceed the original Justice Department complaint. 
Microsoft has pledged to open up options for computer makers to 
configure Windows with the software programs of their choice and 
will create unified terms, conditions, and prices for licensing its 
operating system.
    To reject the opportunity for settlement now will just draw all 
parties into further distraction and do nothing to help the economy. 
Thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Howard Roth



MTC-00018679

From: Brian Vincent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I wish to impart to you that it is my opinion that the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement is a poor one. I believe, after reading the 
available material, that this is in no way a measure that will stop 
Microsoft's monopoly activities. In fact, I feel that the proposed 
settlement, in the manner in which it is worded, will allow 
Microsoft to continue it's monopoly activities, just under a 
different guise. I feel that the proposed settlement is not even a 
``slap on the wrist'', and strongly urge you to find a 
more effective solution that will properly punish and restrict 
Microsoft's illegal activities, and not just cave in to big business 
desires.
    Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    Brian Vincent



MTC-00018680

From: David David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attention: Renata Hesse, Department of Justice:
    I wish to express my views on the Microsoft case as invited by 
the Department. There are several points I would like to make in 
support of Microsoft:
-I resent the government's characterization of me and other 
computer users as helpless victims who cannot choose the software 
that is useful to us. Further, I do not think that the government 
has any right to decide what can be in my computer.
-I resent the idea that a successful business and its products 
are a threat to me or anyone else, and I have yet to hear any 
meaningful or rational argument why they should be considered as 
such.
-I resent the fact that the complaint against Microsoft 
originated not with individual consumers, or with Microsoft's 
partners, but with Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors. This alone 
should be sufficient to dismiss such a case entirely and wihout 
further consideration. Failed businesses must not be allowed to set 
the rules for the markets in which they have failed.

[[Page 26613]]

-For politicians to try to protect some businesses from others 
is a dangerous policy. Continued arbitrary application of the 
incomprehensible antitrust laws against successful businessmen can 
only lead to corruption and economic disaster as shown in many other 
countries and in many periods of history.
-Finally, and most importantly, Microsoft's creators and 
investors have a fundamental right to their property, and to trade 
it voluntarily with anyone and on any terms they wish. It is the 
government's job to protect this right, not to take it away. The 
whole situation is really alarming to anyone who understands this 
issue. Thanks for your attention and I hope that these points will 
be considered.
    Sincerely,
    David Antonacci
    Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00018681

From: Kid Tiki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:17pm
Subject: Opinion on Ruling
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is bad and 
not in the public's best interest.
    Thanks.
    Mike Leo



MTC-00018682

From: Brian Koppe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. It is my understanding that the purpose of the 
Proposed Final Judgement should be to reduce, as much as possible, 
the Applications Barrier to Entry. In other words, make the market 
more open to competition from other products. After reading the 
Proposed Final Judgement and multiple essays on its problems and 
benefits, I have noticed many things that I take issue with. 
However, I'd like to focus on one in particular. This problem is in 
the issue of Microsoft End User License Agreements (EULA). It has 
been shown that Microsoft creates EULA's that place anticompetitive 
restrictions on the user, and that Microsoft has intentionally 
created incompatibilities to keep users from using Windows 
applications on compatible operating systems that are not Windows. 
One example of this is in the license agreement for the Microsoft 
software, NewsAlert-offered by MSNBC. In that license it says, 
``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft 
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. ...'' 
Users of competing operating systems, such as Linux, which are 
capable of running some Windows applications are not legally 
capable, under this restrictive license, to use this program. One 
suggestion as to how restrictive licenses such as this should be 
forced to be changed is for the excerpt above to be re-written as 
follows: ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install 
and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running 
validly licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating 
system.'' In the past, it has been shown that Microsoft places 
technical barriers on competition as well. The 1996 Caldera v. 
Microsoft case shows how Microsoft added code to its product so 
that, when run on a competing operating system (DR-DOS in this 
case), it would give the user an error. As I'm sure you can easily 
look up, the judge ruled that ``Caldera has presented 
sufficient evidence that the incompatibilities alleged were part of 
an anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.'' Unfortunately, with 
the Proposed Final Judgement as it stands, there is no language to 
prohibit these restrictive licenses nor is there language to 
prohibit future intentional incompatabilities. Therefore, in its 
current state, the Proposed Final Judgement assists Microsoft in 
continuing these actions and does not succeed in opening the 
Applications Barrier to Entry. In closing, I would like to add my 
support for Dan Kegel's essay, ``On the Proposed Final 
Judgement in United States v Microsoft,'' located at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html, which is the source of the facts 
I have included in this letter. I would also like to add my support 
for his suggested amendments to the Proposed Final Judgement, which 
are described near the end of his essay, and to the alternate 
settlement proposed by some of the plaintif states and located on 
the website for the National Association of Attorneys General at 
http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-remedy-filing.pdf.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Koppe, Buffalo Grove, IL



MTC-00018683

From: David A Golden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I wish to register my opinion that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is insufficient as currently constructed to effectively 
ensure a free and competitive PC market. In reading the text of and 
various commentaries on the settlement, I am struck by the number of 
loopholes left in the settlement due to improper or misleading 
definitions of ``API'', ``Microsoft 
Middleware'', and ``Windows Operating System 
Product''. Acceptance of the settlement with such loopholes 
would leave it effectively without teeth. I encourage the DOJ to 
review any number of well-reasoned criticisms available on the web, 
written by technical experts rather than lawyers, and which offer a 
``common sense'' understanding of the limitations of the 
remedy as currently constructed. (One excellent such resource is: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html) I urge the DOJ to withdraw 
its consent to the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    David A Golden
    New York, NY



MTC-00018684

From: Ted Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    We are opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. We feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
effectively inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the 
future, or restore competition to the market.
    Sincerely,
    Ted & Patricia Wright



MTC-00018685

From: Manfred Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in support of EVERY legitimate business in this 
nation to operate in a legal climate that does not interfere with 
how they wish to promote or distribute their products. For a nation 
such as the United States to even have laws such as the Anti-Trust 
on the books, is a disgraceful because every petty dictator has laws 
such as these that are used to intimidate and punish those who dare 
to be innovative and successful. Calling Microsoft a monopoly is a 
viscous equivocation of terms. Any reasonable person recognizes the 
difference between domination of a market because: 1) a company has 
created a product that is in great demand due to low price or simply 
because consumers want it (a natural monopoly based on free exchange 
of goods and services), and 2) a state sanctioned monopoly where 
government power is used to maintain a company's economic position 
(such as the expensive ferry monopoly in Hawaii backed by the 
government fiat).
    It is unfortunate that our founding fathers did not include a 
separation of state and business similar to the separation of church 
and state. Much of the turmoil and corruption in government plus the 
billions wasted by business yearly would stop.
    Leave Microsoft alone to pursue it's business in peace and 
freedom.
    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-00018686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sending this e-mail to voice my opposition to the Microsoft 
Settlement on the grounds that it does not do enough to correct the 
illegal monopolistic activities that Microsoft has been convicted 
of. The

[[Page 26614]]

following points written Dan Kegel in his Open Letter to DOJ Re: 
Microsoft Settlement are examples of the weaknesses in the 
settlement.
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems * Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to 
Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even 
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry. * The 
PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and Provisions 
* The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but it 
defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are 
not covered. * The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all. * The PFJ allows users to 
replace Microsoft Java with a competitor's product-but 
Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The PFJ should therefore 
allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with competing middleware. * 
The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines 
that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box-operating systems 
that all use the Win32 API and are advertized as being 
``Windows Powered''. * The PFJ fails to require advance 
notice of technical requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all 
competing middleware simply by changing the requirements shortly 
before the deadline, and not informing ISVs. * The PFJ requires 
Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs so they can create 
compatible middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs 
to demonstrate that their middleware is compatible. * The PFJ 
requires Microsoft to release API documentation-but prohibits 
competitors from using this documentation to help make their 
operating systems compatible with Windows. * The PFJ does not 
require Microsoft to release documentation about the format of 
Microsoft Office documents. * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to 
list which software patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves 
Windows-compatible operating systems in an uncertain state: are 
they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft software patents? This 
can scare away potential users. * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive License Terms currently used by Microsoft * 
Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Open 
Source apps from running on Windows. * Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows apps from running on 
competing operating systems. * Microsoft's enterprise license 
agreements (used by large companies, state governments, and 
universities) charge by the number of computers which could run a 
Microsoft operating system-even for computers running 
competing operating systems such as Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs 
were once banned by the 1994 consent decree.) * The PFJ Fails to 
Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities Historically Used by 
Microsoft * Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems. * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs * The PFJ allows Microsoft to 
retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a 
competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating system. * The 
PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs- 
including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software. * The PFJ allows 
Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on 
criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This 
allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible 
operating systems to increase its market share in other areas. * The 
PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective enforcement 
mechanism.



MTC-00018687

From: Matt Radway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement 
contains narrow wording that does not inhibit Microsoft's ability to 
commit anticompetitive actions in the future.
    In particular, Sect III(J)(2) must be changed to require 
Microsoft to license its APIs, Documentation, and Communications 
Protocols to Non Profit Organizations. There are many NPOs that need 
this information because of their role as maintainers of software 
projects. The Apache Foundation is responsible for Apache, the main 
competitor to Microsoft's Internet Information Server (IIS). 
Likewise, Samba is a system that allows alternative operating 
systems share files with Microsoft operating systems. Samba must use 
Microsoft APIs in order to accomplish its tasks. There are many Non-
Profit Organizations that perform similar functions, and are too 
numerous to be mentioned here. Section III(D) also excludes Non 
Profit Organizations from information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft middleware. The vast majority of the 
provisions within the settlement only formalize the status quo. Of 
the remaining provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft 
from abusing its current monopoly position in the operating system 
market. This is especially important in view of the seriousness of 
Microsoft's past transgressions. Most important, the proposed 
settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's previous actions. 
There are no provisions that correct or redress their previous 
abuses. They only prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. 
This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a 
person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from 
those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general. While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is 
well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew J Radway
    HC 77 Box 231
    Howes, SD 57748



MTC-00018688

From: Chris Parry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I'd like to officially speak against the proposed settlement. 
There are many many reasons for this not to be the right approach 
nor the proper handling of the case. I'm sure there will be no lack 
of forthcoming arguements by people more suited to address this 
case. The most important thing is to require Microsoft to publish 
complete documentation of all interfaces between software 
components, all communications protocols, and all file formats. This 
would block one of Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and 
incompatible interfaces. Thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Parry
    Santa Cruz, CA 95060



MTC-00018689

From: Charles Fulton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I would like to register my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Microsoft has, over the past decade, stifled innovation 
throughout the computing industry. Many companies, most notably Be 
and Netscape, have been destroyed or reduced to shadows of their 
former selves. It is inexplicable that such a company would be 
penalized with what amounts to a slap on the wrist.
    In summation: I am against the settlement.
    Charles Fulton
    Box #244
    1200 Academy St
    Kalamazoo, MI 49006



MTC-00018690

From: Kevin McLin Beason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, my name is Kevin Beason and I am a U.S. Citizen. I think 
the current settlement proposed is completely unsatisfactory and 
needs to be punish Microsoft much more severely. I think they should 
be forced to open the API of their operating systems. Windows is the 
most widely used operating system in the world and by controlling 
the API they are unfairly maintaining their monopoly in other 
software markets.
    I am in favor of breaking the company up into pieces.
    Kevin Beason
    617 Holyoke Ct. Apt. D
    Tallahassee, FL 32301-8905



MTC-00018691

From: Deech Mestel

[[Page 26615]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm of the opinion that the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
is in no way a reasonable end to the case. It provides too many 
concessions to the guilty party and not a single bit of restitution 
to the victims of their actions. I was under the assumption that 
when a party is found guilty, they were actually punished, and 
didn't get to pick their own punishment. It allows them to continue 
their present course of action, it's really only a ``slap on 
the wrist''. This settlement should *not* be adopted without 
significant revision.
    David Mestel
    Systems Analyst
    St. Louis Mo



MTC-00018692

From: Dan Goldshlack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to comment that I believe the proposed 
settlement is a bad idea.
    Thank you,
    Dan Goldshlack



MTC-00018693

From: Ben Russo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the proposed settlement, not enough is done to restrict 
Microsoft's continuing monopolistic and predetory corporate 
activity. The proposed Microsoft Settlement does not do enough to 
discourage other corporations in the US from acting in predetory 
monopolistic manners.
    Contrary to all of the press that I have heard, I believe that 
Microsoft is not a boon to computer technology. They are a lead 
weight to innovation and progress. I support http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html
    Ben Russo
    13068 Rose Petal Circle
    Herndon, Virginia 20171
    Home > 703-736-0829



MTC-00018694

From: Keith McCall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been personally affected by Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices. For example I was required to buy Windows with a computer 
system, even though I bought the system to run Linux-based software 
applications. When the first computer required replacement, I was 
again required to buy Windows with a computer system, even though I 
did not wish to use Windows at all.
    Due to the pressure Microsoft has been able to apply to most 
major computer hardware vendors, it is exceedingly difficult to 
avoid paying for an unwanted Microsoft product. Today most major 
computer hardware vendors are simply distributors for Microsoft's 
monopoly. Again and again, Microsoft has used it's near total 
operating system monopoly to foist inferior products on the 
marketplace. Netscape is, in my opinion, a superior product to 
Microsoft's Explorer, allowing greater control of security and 
``cookies'', for example. Yet even offered free and 
downloadable, Netscape has great difficulty competing when Microsoft 
Explorer comes pre-installed.
    Furthermore, I am again personally affected by Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices, since they use their uncompetitive advantage 
in the web browser market to make further gains in other markets by 
introducing proprietary code as additions to Java. More and more, 
this means that Netscape is unable to completely display web content 
generated by a Microsoft product. Microsoft's practices are harming 
my ability to use the web browser of my choice.
    Microsoft's willingness to obey the laws against abuse of it's 
monopolistic position is most clearly illuminated by their staged 
and provably false demonstrations of Explorer's 
``integration'' into the Windows OS; Microsoft can not be 
trusted not to abuse any advantage they can manufacture. The current 
settlement is a slap on the wrist that does nothing to rectify the 
monopoly and abuse of monopoly which Microsoft has perpetrated for 
years. Worse yet, this settlement practically rewards Microsoft for 
breaking the law: it allows them to unfairly make inroads into 
education-one of the few markets left where Apple computers 
make up a major market share and Microsoft doesn't have monopoly 
power.
    Far from serving as a punishment preventing monopolistic 
behavior, the proposed settlement will enable Microsoft to leverage 
its monopoly power even more, dramatically increasing its 
penetration of a market segment that has heretofore resisted its 
total control.
    I can only conclude that this settlement will harm me as a 
consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Keith A. McCall
    University of Utah
    Division of Hematology, 4C416-SOM
    30 North 1900 East
    Salt Lake City UT 84132-2408
    ph. (801) 581-6713
    fax (801) 585-5469



MTC-00018695

From: Christian Wenger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my opinion that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement does not go far enough in punishing Microsoft for anti-
competitive practices or in motivating them to refrain from anti-
competitive behavior in the future. Microsoft has shown itself to be 
very willing to ignore government instructions affecting their style 
of business in the past, and I believe that they will continue to do 
so in the future if the proposed settlement is accepted. The 
proposed settlement does not contain penalties that are severe 
enough to keep Microsoft from engaging in anti-competitive behavior 
in the future.
    Thank you,
    Christian Wenger
    Senior Java Developer
    Netomat, Inc.



MTC-00018696

From: Jon Hart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    Briefly, I feel the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I agree 
with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis. This analysis 
is available at the following URL:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document. 
Specifically:
-The Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue.
-The settlement would delay the emergence of competing 
Windows-compatible operating systems.
    Therefore, the settlement not in the public interest. It should 
not be adopted without substantial revision to address these 
problems.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Hart
    544 Nightingale St.
    Livermore, CA 94550
    (925) 447-8759
    [email protected]



MTC-00018697

From: Brian Dellert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Brian R. Dellert. I live in Prior Lake, MN. I am an 
independent software developer. I am opposed to the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial.
    I worked at Microsoft during 1997 and 1998 as a contractor on 
the help system. During that time, the help system was changed in a 
way that would cause a previously working application to crash when 
it attempted to look up a keyword in the index. In fact, following 
Microsoft's own published documentation on this feature would cause 
your application to crash.
    This change was made for the Microsoft Office team in order to 
allow support for their famous paper-clip. The 
``advantage'' of this change was kept completely internal 
in undocumented API calls. As for the disadvantage (the crash), 
internal teams were given support to work around the crash. External 
companies were left with no support, no information, no accurate 
documentation, and a help system that did not work as advertised.
    The settlement does nothing to prevent this type of anti-
competitive behavior. The teams responsible for the products that go 
into Microsoft Windows will continue to give

[[Page 26616]]

preferential treatment to Microsoft's applications division, even if 
it causes applications written by its competitors to quit working. 
The most recent example was Apple's QuickTime, which was disabled by 
an upgrade to Microsoft's now dominant web browser, Internet 
Explorer (also known as ``IE'').
    To quote a CNet article on the problem:
Brad Mathis, a network security engineer from Evansville, Ind., 
blamed the problem on Microsoft.
``Being a security-conscious person, I try to stay updated with 
the latest service packs,'' he wrote. ``Unfortunately, SP2 
for IE 5.5 was a service pack with a hidden agenda. It may have had 
a security fix or two in it, but was also designed to remove non-
Microsoft product compatibility.''
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-271653.html? 
 legacy=cnet&tag=dd.ne.dht.nl-sty.0
    Note that ``SP2 for IE 5.5'' refers to ``Service 
Pack 2 for Internet Explorer 5.5''.
    QuickTime directly competes with Microsoft's media player. The 
proposed settlement would be completely ineffective in preventing 
the type of anti-competitive behavior which Microsoft uses to extend 
its Windows monopoly into new areas. I ask you to reject the 
settlement.



MTC-00018698

From: Michael Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, my name is Michael J Cole. I live in San Francisco and I 
would like to comment on the proposed antitrust settlement. I am 
against the settlement for many reasons. Mostly I am against the 
settlement because for the settlement to be effective, it requires 
large amounts of good faith on the part of Microsoft. This is an 
unreasonable assumption based on Microsoft's past and present 
actions and the failure of the settlement will cause an unfair 
burden on the american public.
    In addition, there is no punishment for Microsoft's past 
behavior. I find this amazing and can't begin to understand what 
political and economic power it would take to have such a HUGE 
violator of anti-trust laws have NO punishment actions taken against 
them.
    In closing, I think the settlement will be ineffectual in 
stopping Microsoft's monopoly. They will just change how they 
operate their monopoly. In the end it will cause more harm to the 
american public because Microsoft will be able to comply with the 
settlement and say ``Look, I can't be a monopoly, the court 
says so!''
    Best regards and good luck in this difficult action,
    Mike
    [email protected]
    (415)637-2240



MTC-00018699

From: Christopher Wassman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    First of all, I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. I do not feel that the current proposed 
settlement fully punishes the actions committed by Microsoft in the 
past, nor does it inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in 
the future. This troubles me greatly, as it should trouble all 
Americans.
    The US Department of Justice should also be made aware of the 
``freedom to innovate'' campaign by Mircosoft is 
specifically aimed at ``buying'' public opinion in this 
case. This massive effort by Microsoft will undoubtedly result in 
increased support of Mircosoft's monopolistic practices. If 
Microsoft's competitors had the same money and distribution medium 
that Microsoft already possesses, through its monopoly, to advertise 
and buy public opinion then there would be little issue for the DOJ 
to decide upon. But that's just the point, there is a monopoly here, 
Microsoft is a monopoly, and the current settlement amounts to very 
little to Mircosoft and will do very little to break up this 
monopoly nor to balance the playing field whatsoever.
    The majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Furthermore, none of the provisions will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most importantly, the proposed settlement does nothing to 
correct Microsoft's previous actions. Also, there are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only try to 
prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. This is not right. 
If a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit 
from those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. The current settlement is 
not justice, not for those people and corporations who have suffered 
from the abuses of Microsoft and not for the American people in 
general. While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is 
well intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is a wrong that is 
compounded two-fold. I urge the Court to not accept this settlement 
agreement.
    Thank you for you time.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher D. Wassman, Software Engineer
    6772 Findley Cir
    Huntington Beach, CA 92648
    415 577-1786
    [email protected]



MTC-00018700

From: Darren Daubenspeck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I'm in favor of strong punitive damages against Microsoft as 
part of the monopoly settlement, partly for this reason:
    1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of 
competing middleware to meet ``reasonable technical 
requirements'' seven months before new releases of Windows, yet 
it does not require Microsoft to disclose those requirements in 
advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    But also because of MS's products have permeated our society so 
completely. I'm against socialism, but I'm in favor of governmental 
controls over a company who controls such a large share of the 
software for doing business in this society
    Darren Daubenspeck
    Greenwood, IN
    1/23/02



MTC-00018701

From: J.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The findings of fact in the Microsoft vs. Department of Justice 
trial show that Microsoft holds a monopoly, that their monopoly was 
gained illegally, and that it has been used to illegally leverage 
monopoly power. While the proposed settlement does place limited 
controls on how Microsoft can leverage that power, I feel it is not 
an effective measure to prevent future illegal conduct.
    Additionally, it in no way strips Microsoft of the power they've 
illegally gained, and therefore provides no opportunity for 
competitors to gain a foothold in Microsoft dominated markets. It is 
for these reasons that I am opposed to this settlement.
    Jason M. Kaza
    1437 Calle Marbella
    Oceanside, CA 92056



MTC-00018702

From: Alex Younts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    Hello,
    I think you should make Microsoft pay for what they have done to 
the computing market.The current settlement is flawed in many ways 
and you should not let them off the hook that easy. Another thing 
you should consider is making Mr.Gates take a hike. He will control 
anything about Microsoft in whatever form it may be in after this 
trial.
    In closing, I hate Microsoft because of the damge they have 
done. They (as in everyone who has been involved with Microsoft's 
foul play) should not be let go to do this again (please refer to 
the case where the US jailed a software developer).
    Sincerly,
    Alex Younts
    [email protected]



MTC-00018703

From: jack herndon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:22pm
Subject: The ill gotten gains of microsoft
    Microsoft's illegal threats to cut off contracts if a company 
offers other types of operating systems is a direct violation of 
anti-trust laws. Just because the threats have silenced many 
companies is no reason to throw out the evidence of such events. 
Because Microsoft's threats hindered the selling of other people's 
products it is

[[Page 26617]]

without a doubt that Microsoft is now able to over charge the public 
with their newest operating systems. Windows XP is horribly over 
priced simply because they have created such a monopoly that people 
are afraid to sell other operating systems. Please do what is right 
for the American people, regardless of the current economic status 
it is your job to uphold the law and act in the interest of the 
American people. I ask you to re-evaluate your ruling and no longer 
act in fear of the economy, it can and WILL stand tall.
    John K. Herndon
    American tax paying citizen



MTC-00018704

From: Bart Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We cannot trust that Microsoft will adhere to the proposed 
settlement, any more than they have adhered to past settlements. In 
five years we'll be right back where we are now, after a long 
expensive anti-trust trial, with multiple new victims of Microsoft's 
monopolistic abuses. A more agressive remedy is required to prevent 
further damage to the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Bart Reynolds
    Principal Scientist
    Triscend Corporation



MTC-00018705

From: Paulo Raffaelli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does too little to rein in the 
specific anti-competitive behaviors which Microsoft has engaged in 
in the past, and does not significantly erode the existing barriers 
to entry which Microsoft's software licences and end-user agreements 
impose on the developers and users who create and/or use software 
intended to run on PCs, whether or not those PCs are running a 
Microsoft operating system. The analysis at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy outlines some of the more obvious problems and proposes 
solutions; I urge you to consider it in formulating a better, truly 
effective, settlement.
    Paulo Raffaelli
    Principal Software Engineer, ImagiWorks, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00018706

From: Jay Zach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I stand against the US gov't.s and states settlement with 
Microsoft as it now stands. I do not wish this anti-trust action to 
be settled in such a pro trust manner ( a slap on the wrist , if 
that). Please continue the action against Microsoft.
    James W. Zach II
    908 Jefferson St.
    Frankton, IN 46044



MTC-00018707

From: trinko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional,although my Ph.D. is in Physics, I 
find the proposed settlement completely unacceptable. While I could 
write a long treatise on the problems with Microsoft I think the 
basic problem can be summarized via one example. When a Texas based 
computer manufacturer wanted to put Netscape on the desktop instead 
of Internet Explorer-because that's what customers 
wanted-they were told by Microsoft that if they did so they 
couldn't include Windows with the computers. That's functionally 
equivalent to telling that company that they couldn't sell PCs 
anymore. This tactic and variants thereof allowed Microsoft to take 
over the browser market. The Microsoft business model is to use 
their OS monopoly to drive competitors out of business and then sell 
low quality, low security, intrusive products at high prices. No 
settlement that doesn't prevent this will benefit the American 
consumer.
    I supported George Bushs campaign with my time and money because 
I believe in free markets. But free markets require competition. In 
the absence of competition some form of regulation is required. 
Microsoft has no competition and hence needs regulation. The only 
viable solution I can see is to break Microsoft up into at least two 
companies. One company can make huge profits selling the OS for 90% 
of the worlds computers while the other can make huge profits 
selling applications and services. The key problem with the current 
DOJ settlement is that it doesn't limit the ability of Microsoft to 
use it's OS monopoly to gain monopolies in other areas. The 
situation is similar to that which might occur if the local water 
supply company also sold washing machines. Now if that water supply 
company was nice everything would be fine. If it were run by 
Microsoft executives however it would not allow competitors washing 
machines access to water and after hounding by the DOJ it would 
allow access to water but only after the home owner went through a 
complex and time consuming procedure that required the skills of a 
professional plumber. Needless to say few consumers would go through 
the hassle and would instead buy the ``approved'' monopoly 
backed washer.
    Microsoft has a proven track record of limited concern about 
ethics, security, consumer privacy, and product quality. The current 
DOJ settlement will allow Microsoft to continue to reduce consumer 
choice, increased consumer cost, and reduce consumer product quality 
because it doesn't prevent Microsoft from using its OS monopoly to 
establish monopolies in other areas. Microsoft has shown that it 
will try and circumvent any limited solution and will continue to 
strive to force out of business competitors. Only a dramatic 
severing of the OS from other Microsoft business units will force 
Microsoft to compete on the basis of the quality and cost of their 
products.
    tom trinko Ph.D.
    tom trinko http://members.aol.com/trinkos/basepage.html
    [email protected]



MTC-00018708

From: kim bruning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir/madam,
    I live in a small village called Wijk en Aalburg in the 
Netherlands. I am a software engineer, employed by a small computer 
company in Delft. Also, I study Biology in the city of Utrecht. I am 
not a United States citizen, so I'm not sure how you will regard 
what I have to say. If I only comment on what I see then perhaps my 
opinions might still be of some value. I hope you will be able to 
use them.
    Others have commented on many aspects of the settlement. Much of 
the text seems reasonable. I see two minor points which might need 
some improvement.
    Point 1: Under I.1. ``All terms, including royalties [...] 
reasonable and non-discriminatory.''
    I would like to refer you to a discussion on RAND (Reasonable 
and non-Discriminatory) licensing as has been proposed for the world 
wide web consortium (The organization which sets standards for the 
world wide web). http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-
20010816/ Note especially objections made by some of the w3c 
contributors. To wit: rand is not non-discriminatory. It 
discriminates directly against Open Source and Free Software 
projects. These projects simply cannot use or pay for such RAND 
licensing due to their legal structure. The arguments that could be 
made here are very similar to those stated in the w3c discussion. 
Here are some arguments of my own: Royalty Free (RF) Licensing has 
been proposed as an alternative, and overcomes this weakness.
    Why are Free Software and Open Source Software important? There 
are two arguments based on reason, and one is based on simple 
demonstration:
    (1) The free software operating system Linux is considered by 
many to be a somewhat important competitor to Microsoft. It is 
distributed under the GNU general public licence (GPL) which is a 
distribution license. Allowing Microsoft to discriminate against 
such competitor would not be fair. It could also hardly be called 
non-discriminatory, of course.
    reference: www.gnu.org
    (2) As far as I know, original implementations of RFC 791 
(Internet Protocol) and RFC 793 (Transmission Control Protocol) were 
released under the university of California's'' ``Berkeley 
Software Distribution'' License. This is a free software 
license. These 2 protocols form the heart of the current day 
Internet. The implementation was left Royalty Free, and hence all 
parties adopted it. Also, since the original source was open, all 
parties could learn from it, and the TCP/IP system was quickly 
adopted worldwide. This is very important.
    references: IETF RFCs can be obtained from many sources. Here is 
one on the world wide web.: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/rfc/
rfc791.txt http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/rfc/rfc793.txt

[[Page 26618]]

    (3) Quite simply put: The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol(RFC821) 
is royalty free, to the best of my knowledge. This protocol is used 
to transmit E-mail across the Internet. If it were not for SMTP, and 
if it were not for its royalty free status, I would not have been 
able to send this message. http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/rfc/
rfc821.txt
    A possible solution to the shortcoming in I.1. (and similar 
problems with related points under I) would be to allow for Royalty 
Free licensing of at very least the data interchange formats used by 
Microsoft.
    As an aside: Requiring Microsoft to submit their data formats 
(such as word and excel) to the International Standards Organization 
(ISO) might improve the situation further. Such standards 
organizations argue that good standardization has demonstrably 
improved economic gain, and stimulated competition between all 
parties concerned. I think that even Microsoft might actually gain 
from such an action in the long run. I see nothing wrong with this, 
because such gain would result from fair competition.
    Reference: www.iso.org
    Point 2: Under J it is said that Microsoft may not disclose 
information about security systems, and may set almost any 
requirement when sharing security information with a security 
vendor.
    I am a programmer, not a certified computing security 
professional. However, I have learnt much from such security 
professionals. I will try to summarize their point of view as best 
as I can. Please don't hold any minor errors or omissions I make 
against me. For a more comprehensive discussion of security, you 
could try looking at the scientific literature on this subject. 
Obtaining advice from a Data Encryption Scientist might be somewhat 
rewarding.
    Open knowledge of algorithms and methods is a requirement for 
truly strong security. This seems reasonable to me. After all, if 
one knows of a certain weakness, one can compensate for it and 
prevent people from exploiting it.
    If a hostile element was to be the only person to know a 
weakness in a security system, then that person would certainly be 
able to exploit that weakness. Further, security systems which are 
put up for public review can quickly be assessed for potential 
weaknesses, and these weaknesses can be repaired. No such process 
can be used for systems which are kept secret. A second slight 
problem which some people have brought up is that there might be a 
weakness here. People might state ``security concerns'' as 
an excuse to sidestep what they are required to do under I in some 
situations. In fact this does not seem very hard to do from a 
technical perspective.
    In short, section J on the whole might have some weaknesses. It 
might be a good idea to gain advice from one or more security 
experts (such as perhaps a professor teaching about data encryption, 
or people employed by a government security agency) to determine if 
this is indeed the case. hopefully this is of some use to you,
    sincerely,
    Kim Bruning,
    Anjelierstraat 47,
    4261 CK Wijk en Aalburg,
    The Netherlands.



MTC-00018709

From: Kyle Wheeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement has got to be the worst 
conceivable idea possible. One wonders what exactly this proposed 
``remedy'' is exactly supposed to do. Can you honestly 
believe that requiring Microsoft to give software and hardware to 
the one market that it has yet to make much headway in is a REMEDY 
for monopolistic practices? It is obvious this would merely give 
Microsoft a foothold and cement it's monopoly in yet another market.
    Kyle Wheeler



MTC-00018710

From: Michael McLaughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. The 
following is a section by section diagnose of problems I found 
within the proposed settlement.
    S III.A. Paragraph 1. The three conditions specified for which 
Microsoft cannot retaliate do not alot an OEM to ability to ship 
some of its computers with only a non-Microsoft Operating System. I 
feel that condition 2 should be amended to read: 2. shipping a 
Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System 
Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, (b) will boot with 
more than one Operating System, or (c) includes only a non-Microsoft 
Operating System; or
    S III.A. Paragraph 2. Should it so desire, Microsoft can easily 
terminate a Covered OEM's license in two months by finding 3 minute 
faults in the OEM's implementation of the license's requirements 
despite good faith efforts of the OEM to remain in bounds of the 
license.
    S III.C. Paragraph 1 Condition 3. An OEM licensee should be free 
to have any software it deems beneficial to the user and the user's 
computing experience launch automatically regardless of the 
existence of a similar Microsoft product.
    S III.D. Paragraph 1. The requirement that the APIs released be 
used for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating 
System Product severely restricts the actions of those individuals 
and groups involved in allowing programs written for a Microsoft 
Operating System Product run on a non-Microsoft Operating System. 
These people will be opened up to potentially bankrupting litigation 
to ensure that their product(s) does(do) not come to market through 
the claim that they infringed on the terms laid out in this 
statement. The requirement that the APIs be used for the sole 
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product 
restricts competition instead of enriching it. Additionally, 
Microsoft has begun to create products that are integrated with the 
operating system but are not the operating system. Examples of this 
are the Internet Explorer web browser and the Windows Media Player. 
These programs which are becoming essential through Microsoft's 
perserverance provide their own APIs which remain potentially 
uncovered by this clause due to their circumspect nature. This 
clause should be modified to include operating system components in 
addition to the operating system itself. Also, this clause specifies 
a Windows Operating System Product, whereas earlier portions specify 
Microsoft Operating System Products. This and subsequent clauses 
should be modified to use the term Microsoft Operating System 
Product in order to attain consistency and also to ensure that a new 
non-Windows operating system comes to market which could then 
technically continue with the behavior which this clause is seeking 
to remedy. Finally, the term Timely Manner at the end of this clause 
is potentially open to abuse. The definition of Timely Manner should 
be altered such that the time frame of release is better defined. 
The current definition seemingly relies on current Microsoft 
practices which are easily alterable to corrupt the intentions of 
this paragraph. This paragraph is seriously flawed in my opinion and 
will achieve none of its objectives due to the massive loopholes and 
inconsistent statements and naming conventions layed out above and 
continued in discussions further in this statement.
    S III.E. Paragraph 1. This statement suffers from the same 
problem enumerated in the beginning of the above discussion of S 
III.D. Paragraph 1. The requirement of sole purpose once again opens 
individuals and groups up to potentially bankrupting law suits which 
would seek to silence them and prevent the release of products 
competing with Microsoft products.
    S III.F. Paragraph I Condition 1. This entire condition is 
potentially inconsistent with and voided by other sections of this 
proposed settlement due to the conditions laid out above regarding S 
III.D. Paragraph 1 and S III.E. Paragraph 1. The requirement of APIs 
being released for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product means that an ISV developing a replacement 
for certain functionality in a Windows Operating System Product is 
open to coercion through lawsuits claiming they misappropriated the 
published APIs regardless of whether ISV determined the APIs through 
their own efforts. Microsoft would not technically be retaliating 
for the ISV or IHV breaking any of these conditions but rather for 
them misappropriating the information Microsoft published and 
therefore would effectively entirely circumvent the purpose of this 
clause.
    S III.F. Paragraph 1 Condition 2. This entire condition is 
subject to the same potential problems and flaws laid out regarding 
S III.F. Paragraph I Condition 1.
    S III.H. Paragraph 2 Condition 1. This condition allowing a 
Windows Operating System Product to invoke a Microsoft Middleware 
Product to connect to a Microsoft maintained server fails to take 
into account Microsoft's current .NET business plan in which 
computers will continually be accessing Microsoft maintained servers 
in order to undergo their normal operation. Not

[[Page 26619]]

allowing specifically for OEMs to override this ability by setting a 
non-Microsoft Middleware Product with similar functionality the 
ability to be launched instead of the Microsoft Middleware Product 
in essence grants license to Microsoft to continue the undesirable 
practices sought to be remedied here by way of new technology. 
Microsoft should be required to allow non-Microsoft Middleware 
Products with similar functionality to be launched instead of 
Microsoft Middleware Products at the sole discretion of the OEM or 
the end user to connect to Microsoft maintained servers.
    S III.H. Paragraph 4 Condition 5. The word ``it'' in 
the following except, ``a license to any intellectual property 
rights it may have,'' is ambiguous and therefore makes this 
section incomprehensible and open to interpretation which could lead 
to undesirable consequences.
    S III.H. Paragraph 5. This paragraph potentially eliminates any 
requirements laid out in S III.D. Paragraph 1, S III.E. Paragraph 1, 
and other sections due to Microsoft's potential ability to claim 
that its APIs are part of its intellectual property. This grants 
entirely too much freedom of interpretation to Microsoft and if this 
paragraph is necessary to this potential remedy, it should be 
rewritten to take into account all of the proposals set forth in 
this document.
    S III.J. Paragraph 1 Condition 1. Microsoft is allowed far too 
much freedom of interpretation by this condition. Determining what 
should not be released due to security restrictions should be lodged 
in the hands of an independent body that does not answer to 
Microsoft in order to ensure that everything required to be released 
to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, OEMs, and others is released. The 
potential for Microsoft to deem that something which it is valuable 
for it to retain sole access to is a potential security compromise 
is too great to be ignored.
    S III.J. Paragraph 1 Condition 2. Microsoft is, again, allowed 
too much freedom of interpretation by this condition. Competitors 
can easily be excluded by any one of these conditions at Microsoft's 
sole discretion. Verification that a person or entity applying for 
access to any API, Documentation, or Communication Protocol that is 
determined to be kept secret due to security concerns should rest 
with an independent body due to the potential for abuse of power.
    S IV.B.2.a. The time period of one year should be lengthened to 
two years in order to better ensure that a TC member is completely 
free of any allegiances. S V.B. The one-time extension of two years 
should either be lengthened to five years or else the extensions 
should be allowed to be indefinite. This section currently fails to 
exhibit the seriousness of the nature of Microsoft acting to breach 
this agreement. The naming and formatting conventions used in the 
proposed settlement lack uniformity, which weakens the document as a 
whole. I strongly disagree that this proposed settlement is enough 
to keep Microsoft from engaging in anti-competitive behavior. I 
believe that monetary damages should be imposed in addition to a 
corrected version of this document (as I have outlined above).
    Thank you for your time.
    Michael McLaughlin
    9 Heaton Lane
    Wappingers Falls, NY 12590-6003



MTC-00018711

From: John K. Hohm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It fails to 
prohibit Microsoft from much of the illegal behavior it has been 
found guilty of.



MTC-00018712

From: Drew Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I do not believe the current proposal serves the 
interests of promoting competition or remedying the impact on the 
American consumer.
    Specifically, I believe the current proposal will stifle 
competition by giving Microsoft a leg-up on competitors under the 
guise of a settlement. Permitting Microsoft to settle the matter by 
delivering Microsoft products to school systems, which traditionally 
tend to favor other vendors (e.g., Apple), would be tantamount to 
state-sponsorship of the extension of Mcirosoft's monopoly. Instead, 
Microsoft should be required to make payment in cash, and then 
permit the school systems to direct the use of these funds in the 
(hopefully technical) areas of its choosing.
    Futhermore, I believe the amount of the settlement is grossly 
inadequate to remove the incentive for Microsoft to continue its 
practices. I believe Microsoft will treat the settlement as a 
``cost of doing business'', much as any other 
``administrative overhead''. Finally, I believe the 
settlement should include requirements for Microsoft to provide open 
access to interfaces between its products, and to provide an 
unbundled version of Windows (no Internet Explorer, no Windows Media 
Player, etc.). These actions are needed to afford competitive 
products, including open source alternatives, with an environment in 
which they can compete on a level playing field with a competitor 
which controls the incumbent desktop operating system technology. 
Without true, timely and open access to interoperability 
information, the barriers of entry for alternative commercial and 
open source products will be too high to overcome the leverage held 
through its desktop operating system monopoly. To truly avoid a 
recurrence of past practices, an oversight committee of some sort is 
truly needed.
    Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
    Sincerely
    Andrew (``Drew'') Wright



MTC-00018713

From: Carlson, Christopher W.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I am writing to register my disapproval of the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. It in no way properly addresses the amount of 
damage caused to the software and computer industry by Microsoft 
over the years and, as that company's continued blatant 
anticompetitive behavior illustrates, does not serve to restrict any 
further violations of antitrust law.
    If Microsoft is not regulated in some meaningful way, the market 
will never become competitive again. In the absence of an 
environment which allows (much less fostors) effective competition, 
consumers will continue to suffer and potential competitors will 
continue to suffer. Furthermore, if heretofore unknown problems 
within Microsoft were to destroy that company after it had erased 
competition, the impact on our economy would be devastating.
    Please do not allow the Settlement to pass as is. It is 
insufficient, ineffective, and an insult to everybody who has been 
affected in an adverse way by Microsoft's immoral and illegal 
business practices.
    Thank you.
    Signed,
    Christopher W. Carlson
    My opinion does not necessarily reflect that of my employer.



MTC-00018714

From: Robert A Nesius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I'm writing to express my disappointment with the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement currently under consideration. There are many 
reasons for this, which will be well documented in the formal, open 
letters I've seen submitted for consideration. The final analysis 
leads one to conlude that really these proposed remedies will not 
substantively change Microsoft's behavior and business practices in 
any such way as to mitigate the effects of these behaviors in the 
future.
    Moreover, there is no consequence or penalty for Microsoft's 
proven wrong doings beyond an attempt to modify Microsoft's future 
behaviors.
    I strongly urge this settlement proposition be denied.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Nesius
    5528 SW BVTN-HLSDL Hwy #C
    Portland, OR 97221
    Robert Nesius
    [email protected]
    503.712.2181
    DPG Engineering Computing SW Applications Team



MTC-00018715

From: Dave Pifke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I do not support the settlement in its current form. I believe 
the remedies included in the settlement are woefully inadequate to 
protect the public from further abuses of

[[Page 26620]]

Microsoft's monopoly position. An effective settlement needs to 
include much farther reaching limits on Microsoft's behavior and 
punishment for its previous anti-competitive practices.
    Please reject the settlement as it now stands.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Pifke
    2574 Chestnut Street #2
    San Francisco, Ca. 94123
    (415) 902-8317



MTC-00018716

From: Ian Flanigan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am OPPOSED to the Microsoft Settlement. I believe that the 
Microsoft Settlement is a bad, bad idea. It fails to hold Microsoft 
accountable for its illegal use of its operating system monopoly in 
promoting its own products while crushing its competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Ian Flanigan
    Software Developer
    Portland, Oregon



MTC-00018717

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Speaking as someone with 15 years experience with Unix, the 
current proposed Microsoft settlement does nothing to help undo the 
mess of the computer industry that Microsoft has made. The states 
that are holding out have the right idea. Listen to them.
    Brad Elmore
    (not speaking for his employer in any fashion)



MTC-00018718

From: Deric Stowell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I DON'T AGREE
    Thanks,
    Deric Stowell-
    Digital Paradise
    



MTC-00018719

From: Colleen Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would just like to offer my opinion as a part of the Tunney 
Act in regards to the U.S.-Microsoft antitrust trial. I 
believe that the proposed settlement is not sufficient for solving 
the problem and that it will only cause more problems in the future. 
I believe that a new settlement needs to be made that will actually 
solve the problem of Microsoft's monopoly. Thank you.
    Andy Ford



MTC-00018720

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the proposed Microsoft settlement ludicrous. How does one 
rectify a predatory monopoly which has leveraged and crushed its way 
into more and more markets/segements by giving them leverage into 
yet another market? Microsoft is traditionally weak in the Education 
market.  Wow, they're willing to leverage 
into it as a ``settlement'' of antitrust litigation. 
 Ha!
    How about forcing a reasonable EULA, forcing the offering of 
Windows without Explorer, and making them liable for security holes 
and glitches - other consumer companies cannot get away with 
selling a defective product.
    Tom Schwerdt
    [email protected]



MTC-00018721

From: Girard Jergensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with and have asked to cosign Dan Kegel's remarks, this 
proposed settlement is lacking. See his page http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html.



MTC-00018722

From: Chris Woodard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The settlement that the Department of Justice reached with 
Microsoft is totally inadequate. Microsoft is a predatory monopoly 
that has repeatedly broken the law, and the settlement makes it look 
like the Justice Department caved in and threw a fight that the 
government had already won. If this settlement goes through, then 
the only lesson that Microsoft will have learned is that it doesn't 
have to follow the same rules, laws, and moral standards that the 
rest of us do, and that would be a sad thing to have to explain to 
our children.
    The U.S. government already looks like a patsy for big corporate 
interests with all the juice and help that Enron was getting for its 
money. Do we really want to suck up to Microsoft as well?
    http://www.billparish.com/20011128msftupdate.html



MTC-00018723

From: Reid Conti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not understand why Microsoft should be allowed to retaliate 
against OEMs that refuse to sell bundle Microsoft software on the 
computers they sell. Isn't this the definition of illegal use of 
monopoly power? The proposed settlement about Microsoft is little 
more than a slap on the wrist.
    Reid Conti
    15651 SE 43rd St.
    Bellevue, WA 98006-4501



MTC-00018724

From: Bill Byrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to settlement as written.



MTC-00018725

From: jack herndon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's illegal threats to cut off contracts if a company 
offers other types of operating systems is a direct violation of 
anti-trust laws. Just because the threats have silenced many 
companies is no reason to throw out the evidence of such events. 
Because Microsoft's threats hindered the selling of other people's 
products it is without a doubt that Microsoft is now able to over 
charge the public with their newest operating systems. Windows XP is 
horribly over priced simply because they have created such a 
monopoly that people are afraid to sell other operating systems. 
Please do what is right for the American people, regardless of the 
current economic status it is your job to uphold the law and act in 
the interest of the American people. I ask you to re-evaluate your 
ruling and no longer act in fear of the economy, it can and WILL 
stand tall.
    John K. Herndon
    American tax paying citizen



MTC-00018726

From: Oliver Langan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:28pm
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. Specifically, I believe it fails to penalize Microsoft 
for past illegal behavior, and therefore does nothing to restore any 
sense of balance to the marketplace.
    Microsoft has already gained dominance in the marketplace, and 
altering its behavior now (while necessary) does nothing whatsoever 
to address these past transgressions. While I beleive it would be 
difficult to appoint restitution to specific companies in a case 
like this, a large penalty paid to the government would address the 
specific heart of the matter: microsoft would not be allowed to keep 
its ill-gotten gains.
    oliver langan
    [email protected]



MTC-00018727

From: Todd Kadrie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Network Administrator with 15 years of experience 
supporting software which runs on Microsoft, Netware and Linux 
operating systems, I'd like to offer my comments related to the 
Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft.
    The proposed final judgement does not address what I view as 
some of the issues that most directly have impacted both the 
companies that I have worked for and myself personally and 
professionally. A specific

[[Page 26621]]

example of a clearly illegal practice which would be allowed to 
continue unchecked is covered in Section III.A.2. of the Proposed 
Final Judgement. This portion of the PFJ effectively allows 
Microsoft to retaliate against OEM's that choose to ship computers 
with free or inexpensive alternative operating system like Linux or 
BeOS, even when they include no Microsoft OS at all. The growth and 
wide-spread ability of alternative Operating Systems like Linux and 
BeOS operating systems have been severely hampered by Microsoft's 
exclusionary aggreements with OEM's.
    From my own experience, I have no interest or need to buy a 
computer with a copy of any version of Microsoft Windows pre-
installed, but under Microsoft's exclusionary contracts, I have had 
to buy all of my computers with a Microsoft OS bundled at an 
additional fee, and then had to go to the trouble of removing the 
Microsoft OS and then installing a prefered alternative like Linux 
or BeOS.
    In addition the enforcement of the provisions of the PFJ clearly 
lack real enforcement power or ``teeth''. Instead of 
leaving enforcement to the legal system, with it's clear lack of 
understanding of technical details or real implementation, a much 
more effective and suitable solution would be the establishment of a 
Technical Committee with investigative powers and the ability to 
enforce it's findings.
    Considering these and other problems, it is my contention that 
the Proposed Final Judgment not only allows but encourages 
anticompetitive practices to continue, and actively delays the 
growth and wide-spread adoption of competing operating systems. 
Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest, and should not be adopted in it's current form.
    Thank you,
    Todd S. Kadrie
    1690 Hwy 36 W.
    St. Paul, MN 55113



MTC-00018728

From: James Marca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    My name is James Marca. I am a graduate student in Civil 
Engineering at UC Irvine. I object on many points to the propose 
Microsoft Settlement, and as a citizen of the State of California, I 
am quite happy that my State Attorney General is one of those 
pushing for a stronger settlement. In short, I believe the federal 
government caved. I believe that the Republican party has been 
swayed by the money, as well as its traditional sweet spot for big 
business. Unfortunately, the Enron debacle demonstrates vividly that 
the free market and self-regulation is not good enough at stemming 
the worst excesses of corporate greed. Allow me to digress slightly.
    Microsoft is an aggressive, smart company, who are quite capable 
of crushing competition in all forms. When Netscape came out with 
their Navigator browser and the WWW was essentially brand new, I was 
working in Boston at a consulting firm. When we finally got Internet 
access at our desks, it was a revelation. My friend and I had a long 
running email exchange about what this new medium meant. I 
remembered Marshall McLuhan's book, The Medium is the Massage, which 
I had read as an undergraduate when I was working on my senior 
(engineering!) thesis. For several months I read that random pages 
from that book, and thought about how McLuhan was really describing 
the Internet, not electricity and television. I proposed to my 
friend (a programmer in Palo Alto) that we should leverage hypertext 
to create a browsing platform, not just for display, as Netscape was 
doing, but for running programs like spreadsheets and word 
processors. My friend wrote back saying forget it, Netscape was 
already pushing that front, and they had a huge head start.
    At the time, I was sick and tired of Windows applications 
crashing. The thought of an alternative operating system was really 
appealing to me, as my company had just converted to MS Office, 
disallowing the use of Lotus and WordPerfect in the name of 
corporate standardization. Right before I went back to graduate 
school, I was working on a document with our publication department 
in which many spreadsheet figures were embedded in an MS Word 
document. That sucker crashed if you made two changes. So to proof-
read the document, edit the WYSIWYG elements, and so on, we had to 
open it up, make one change, save, close, reopen, change, save, 
close, and so on. When I got back to grad school, I found LaTeX, 
then later Linux, and I no longer use Microsoft products. (YAY!)
    I told you that story so I could tell you this one. I am not a 
lawyer, and I cannot decipher many of the details of the proposed 
settlement. Therefore, I have read through many of the comments that 
are available on the Internet. One of the best is by Robert 
Cringely, available at: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html If I may, I'd like to quote from that document, 
starting with the seventh paragraph:
    Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgment 
specifically protect companies in commerce-organizations in 
business for profit. On the surface, that makes sense because 
Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic activities against 
``competing'' commercial software vendors like Netscape, 
and other commercial vendors-computer vendors like Compaq, for 
example. The Department of Justice is used to working in this kind 
of economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that 
will rein in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft's greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux-a non-
commercial product-and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications. The 
biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is 
Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don't even exist.
    I would add that the biggest competitor to Microsoft Word, in 
the academic market, is LaTeX and TeX, a public domain text layout 
system. Again, free software.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, ... 
`` So much for Samba and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology-even the 
Department of Justice itself-have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't 
run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
    My fear is that one day I will buy a computer whose motherboard 
BIOS requires me to run Microsoft's latest subscription-based 
operating system, which will in turn only allow me to run 
Microsoft's subscription-based office suite, and Microsoft's 
subscription-based compiler will be the only one that can take 
advantage of Microsoft's proprietary windows API. Paranoid, perhaps. 
But this laptop that I am typing on came with Windows ME. Only 
Windows ME. I loaded up Slackware Linux 8.0 immediately, and had no 
problems, and yet Sony was unable to sell me this laptop without 
Windows ME, due to licensing restrictions from Microsoft. The only 
laptops I could find with Linux on them were very expensive models 
from IBM--out of my budget. So I was *forced* to pay Microsoft 
for a copy of windows that I *do not* use. I had no recourse, other 
than not buying the laptop.

[[Page 26622]]

    Back to applications and APIs. There is no way to take a LaTeX 
document and save it as a Word document, since there is no public 
documentation of the Word file format, and reverse engineering that 
format might be illegal illegal (if I understand the restrictions of 
the DMCA properly). So if I want to work with co-workers on a 
document, I am forced to save as RTF, or rich text format. Luckily 
the good folks at AbiWord and OpenOffice have developed utilities to 
read Word documents and convert them into editable text. But there 
is no reverse, save as Word option.
    There is nothing in this settlement that will make my situation 
easier, and plenty that will make it worse. At home I am going to 
set up a Samba file server and printer gateway, so that my wife and 
I can both use the new printer without switching cables and so on. 
Samba has been in danger from Microsoft for some time. About a year 
ago, Microsoft engaged in some textbook embrace-and-extend (the same 
way they snatched html from Netscape) with the Kerberos 
authentication system, thus forcing the Samba guys to play catch-up 
with Windows 2000. I can't find details on that situation, but I did 
find this older Samba document, from the Samba.org website:
    The Future Windows 2000 looms on the horizon like a lazy animal 
peeking its head over the edge of its burrow while trying to decide 
whether or not to come out. No one is exactly sure about the kind of 
animal it will be when it does appear, but folks are fairly certain 
that it will have teeth. Because of their dominance on the desktop, 
Microsoft gets to decide how CIFS will grow. Windows 2000, like 
previous major operating system releases, will give us a whole new 
critter to study. Based on the beta copies and the things that 
Microsoft has said, here are some things to watch for:
    CIFS Without NetBIOS. Microsoft will attempt to decouple CIFS 
and NetBIOS. NetBIOS won't go away, mind you, but it won't be 
required for CIFS networking either. Instead, the SMB protocol will 
be carried natively over TCP/IP. Name lookups will occur via the 
DNS.
    Dynamic DNS Microsoft will implement Dynamic DNS, a still-
evolving system designed by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task 
Force). Dynamic DNS allows names to be added to a DNS server on-the-
fly.
    Kerberos V Microsoft has plans to use Kerberos V. The Microsoft 
K5 tickets are supposed to contain a Privilege Attribute Certificate 
(PAC), which will include user and group ID information from the 
Active Directory. Servers will be looking for this PAC when they 
grant access to the services that they provide. Thus, Kerberos may 
be used for both authentication and authorization. Active Directory 
The Active Directory appears to be at the heart of Windows 2000 
networking. It is likely that legacy NetBIOS services will register 
their names in the Active Directory.
    Hierarchical NT Domains Instead of isolated Domain Controllers, 
the NT Domain system will become hierarchical. The naming system 
will change to one that is remarkably similar to that of the DNS.
    Whatever the next Windows animal looks like, it will be Samba's 
job to help it get along with its peers in the diverse world of the 
Internet.
    And of course, Microsoft's job is to try to kill the Samba 
effort, so that they can sell more licenses to software.
    I fail to see how the proposed settlement addresses Microsoft 
extending its monopoly to the Internet, which is dominated by free 
software at the moment, nor how it addresses the attempts by 
Microsoft to preserve its dominance of the desktop market, where the 
only credible alternative is Linux and programs written for Linux. 
In tact, the settlement appears to allow Microsoft at best to ignore 
and at worst actively litigate against (for reverse engineering, 
etc) its largest potential competitor--free software.
    You have not required MS to open up their APIs to all comers, 
only to commercial entities. Open source projects, on the other 
hand, open their source to all comers, Microsft included. So 
Microsoft (or any commercial company) can look at the Apache code, 
the Samba code, and so on, and take the best features that they see.
    You may think this is silly, that commercial companies have 
better code than free software advocates, and so on. But consider 
this interview with Donald Knuth, inventor and programmer of TeX, 
from http://www.advogato.org/article/28.html
    Q: I noticed, for example, that in the proprietary software 
market for publishing, that systems are only today acquiring 
features that have existed in TeX for a long time, for example 
whole-paragraph optimization. There's a big to-do about Adobe 
InDesign, which finally...
    A: They finally implemented the TeX algorithm.
    Q: Did they implement the TeX algorithm?
    A: Yeah, that's what they said.
    Q: Did you talk to the people?
    A: I met three of four of them at the ATYPI meeting in Boston in 
October, but that was after I had heard about it, that some friends 
had found this in the documentation.
    The fertile development environment envisioned by free software 
pioneers such as Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond is happening in 
the open source world. I have often opened up perl and C++ source 
code to learn about better ways to do things in my own code, and 
when I take snippets I credit the source, and make sure that my own 
code is at least as open (GPL2 or Artistic licenses being my 
personal favorites). But the transfer of ideas and techniques 
appears to be a one-way street from the free software world to the 
proprietary software world. Companies like Microsoft take. And then 
in the settlement they don't even have to open up their APIs to free 
software programmers! APIs are NOT code. They are just hooks into 
compiled code. So I can't see the crappy or excellent source code 
with an API, I just get to see the advertised *capabilities* of 
compiled code. And yet Microsoft does not have to share this with 
me, because I am not a viable commercial entity.
    Why does this matter? Because I am the future of this country, 
as is my office mate, my advisor, undergraduates I work with, and as 
is my 18 month old daughter. I share my knowledge with these people, 
and I encourage them to learn and share back.
    I am developing a peer-to-peer traffic information and control 
system which I hope will be open to all. I call it the Autonet. I 
pride myself on the idea that it may become ubiquitous, and so I 
wrote the term and the ideas in my notebook last year. But otherwise 
I have made no effort to hide my ideas, because I feel what I am 
doing will be best served if everybody has a hand in it--many 
hands make light work, but also many eyes can watch big brother. But 
my system has to run on Linux. I dare not base any of my code on 
Microsoft tools and APIs, because they can pull the rug out from 
under me at any time. I am not a commercial entity, but I am an 
academic, and a programmer of modest expertise. I can develop useful 
tools and products, and I will do so for Linux. However, who will 
use my code if MS kills Linux, if it becomes illegal to reverse 
engineer APIs, if Lindows is crushed and prevented from marketing a 
Linux within Windows setup (or whatever it is they've got going over 
there). And when computers are plonked in cars (they are beginning 
to pop up now), you can bet that MS will try to get all of them to 
run Windows. If my ideas are the best thing going, they will steal 
my ideas and release a featureful extension of my APIs, and they can 
legally withhold their extensions to my API from me! Of course, that 
is a far off and improbable future, but you proposed settlement is 
weighing heavily in my mind. Why should I bother with this 
innovation, if it will get extended and stolen by Microsoft? Why 
should anyone try to break the rules, if the legal rules are written 
and enforced to the advantage of the entrenched monopolies?
    I do hope you back out of this embarrassing sell-out of a 
settlement. Failing that, I hope that my attorney general is able to 
get a much stronger settlement in effect for California residents.
    Thank you for your time on this rambling letter.
    James Marca
    2925 Redwood Avenue
    Costa Mesa, CA 92622
    [email protected]
    ps, as I am about to mail this off, I did one more search on 
Google for the Samba stuff I remember. Here is one link of many that 
turned up in my search (type Kerberos Samba embrace extend)
    http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/
0,14179,2582875,00.html
    The article points out that Microsoft did nothing legally wrong, 
since they exploited a hole in the BSD-style license. But there is 
the smoking gun of trying to kill Samba by taking and not giving 
back.
    james



MTC-00018729

From: Nicholas S. Rubenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a sham.
    A settlement like this tells me that the government should never 
have sued in the first place. This has been a complete waste of 
money. The whole point of the anti-trust lawsuit was to force 
Microsoft to alter its behavior. Now, it has a carte blanche from 
the government to do just about whatever it pleases.

[[Page 26623]]

    This is SHAMEFUL.
    Nicholas S. Rubenstein



MTC-00018730

From: Gee, Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern that the Proposed Final 
Judgement is ineffective, allows anti-competitive practices to 
continue, is excessively vague or overnarrow and should NOT be 
adopted without substantial revisions to address the following 
problems:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. Details of which are at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html I am also indicating that I will 
be a co-signer of Dan Kegel's Comments
    Thank you for your time and attention,
    Christopher W. Gee



MTC-00018731

From: Devon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I think the proposed settlement is bad idea, 
especially because of the requirements for Microsoft to release API 
documentation too late to help ISVs.
    Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN 
or similar means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft 
Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be 
required at the time of the final beta test of the covered 
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be 
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their 
products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which states 
that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet 
unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final 
beta test of a new version of Windows.
    I do not support the Settlement as it currently reads.
    Devon McDaniel
    1320 W. Huron #1
    Ann Arbor, MI 48103
    [email protected]



MTC-00018732

From: Zakir Sahul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed final 
judgement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. The judgement is just a 
hoop that Microsoft can easily jump through and continue it's 
predatory monopolistic policies. This has cost consumers enormously 
and will continue to do so in the future. It also will continue to 
slow the pace of innovation in technology.
    Please reconsider the government's decision to settle. Thank 
you,
    Sincerely,
    Zakir H. Sahul
    4914 25th Ave NW
    Rochester MN 55901
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00018733

From: austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    OPEN UP THE API's-that's the only settlement that will 
give any competitor any kind of footing agiasnt the microsoft 
monopoly. Everything else is just a joke to microsoft.



MTC-00018734

From: Jerry Tompkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is patently absurd and morally abhorrent that Microsoft 
should get off with the inane settlement agreed to by the DOJ. What 
do I tell my kids and grandkids? It1s morally OK if you1re a huge 
corporation to get away with numerous activities which are morally 
wrong? I1m a registered Republican and consider myself a 
conservative. I have always been supportive of free enterprise in 
business.
    But Microsoft1s actions have nothing whatsoever to do with the 
conduct of a business in a free enterprise system. They have 
strangled an industry which is at the heart and soul of our nation1s 
economy. They are demonstrating they can not only squash competition 
but even step on our government as if it were some irritating bug 
and nothing more.
    Anyone with an IQ of 90 and enough sense to avoid voting for 
Liberal Democrats knows what an evil empire Microsoft truly is.
    Disgusted.
    Jerry W. Tompkins
    2835 S.W. Prairie Rd. #39
    Topeka, KS 66614
    [email protected]



MTC-00018735

From: Bill Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to express my displeasure of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement as allowed by the Tunney Act. I have been a computer 
professional for over 10 years and I have witnessed first hand the 
rise of the Microsoft monopoly and the damage it has caused to the 
computer industry. I feel that the settlement as it stands now does 
not go far enough to redress this damage. The definitions of 
``API'' and ``middleware'' as detailed in the 
settlement, are so narrow that they become meaningless in todays 
computer market. Also, by allowing Microsoft to set the terms for 
licensing it's API to developers, the settlement allows them to 
lock-out many Open Source and Freeware developers who would be 
working on projects in a non-profit manner.
    I hope that the Department of Justice will re-examine this 
settlement and come up with a better solution that truly opens the 
computer industry up for healthy competition.
    Bill Thompson
    Seattle, WA USA
    [email protected]



MTC-00018736

From: Daniel Binkard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to give my opinion on the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft: It's a bad idea, and, in my opinion, allows the company 
to continue with it's monopoly. A tighter settlement should be used. 
It's time for the government to show its teeth to Microsoft.
    Cheers,
    Daniel Binkard



MTC-00018737

From: Paul Beriswill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to add my input on the weak settlement in the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case. Allowing such a weak remedy for the 
blatant violations of this monopolistic tyranny provides one more 
proof of the general consensus that you get only as much justice as 
you can afford to buy! As you are probably aware, since the 
settlement offer Microsoft has been aggressively persuing their 
aggression in new areas.
    I urge you to reject the settlement offered as not in the public 
interest. Any remedy should sting at least to the extent that the 
perpetrators are able to gauge the pain that they have inflicted on 
others.



MTC-00018738

From: Phil Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the entire issue regarding the settlement is 
unjust, un-American, and undue. Microsoft saying that Microsoft 
acted in an anticompetitive manner is similar to saying that Ford, 
GM, and Chrysler act in an anticompetitive manner towards RCA, and 
Motorola when it comes to installing radios in their cars. The 
browser is a part of an operating system much the same way that a 
radio is these days a part of a car yet I do not see any antitrust 
law suits being served to ``the big three''.
    Also, the real reason why Netscape lost to Microsoft had nothing 
to do with co-mingling

[[Page 26624]]

code or bundling a product that should be free to begin with. It had 
everything to do with smart marketing and strong business 
partnerships. That's not anticompetitive, that's intelligent 
business. On the whole, the damages due to Netscape should amount to 
the total salaries of its CEOs, CTOs, and board members for allowing 
such gross negligence and bad business tactics to go on without 
proper remedy. The entity responsible for Netscape's demise is none 
other than the people who failed to run their business properly.
    I have always believed that it is not the place of the American 
Government to prop up dying business-Certainly, our President 
will have a lot to answer for if it ever comes to light that he 
helped to support Enron during it's fall. Or perhaps Enron should 
simply start suing all those other power utility providers? With 
much disgust for the entirety of the 2-year debacle that is nothing 
more than a repeat of the antitrust case regarding Windows 95/98, I 
sign this letter in protest to the state's settlement as it stands. 
Further I will say that destroying Microsoft is of no help to our 
economy, or to the computer industry. If the legal system must pick 
an entity to pick on, I say go after AOL-Time-Warner.
    Phil Smith
    705 West Stoughton #2
    Urbana Il, 61801
    ([email protected])



MTC-00018739

From: Rob Salzman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose this settlement. The remedy is a continued license to 
steal.



MTC-00018740

From: Frye, Ramsey
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement falls far short of punishing Microsoft 
for their past transgressions and does nothing to prevent them from 
continuing the same practices that got them in trouble in the first 
place. If a tougher settlement isn't decided on, then I'm sure you 
will be back in another 5-10 years to slap Microsoft's wrist 
once again. I realize that someday a company will be allowed to get 
so powerful that even the government will be afraid of them, but 
please don't let Microsoft be that company.
    Thank you for giving me this opportunity to tell you how I don't 
like the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    Sincerely yours,
    Ramsey Frye
    Apt 163
    214 Old Hickory Blvd
    Nashville, TN 37221



MTC-00018741

From: Scott Fohey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft deserves to be seriously sanctioned, and you seem to 
be rolling over and playing dead in the face of a convicted 
monopolist who's business practices continue to be suspect. Why are 
you letting them off? M'soft doesn't deserve protection. The public 
needs protection from them. You offer only the former.
    Scott Fohey



MTC-00018742

From: Doug Kingston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The practices used by microsoft in this case and others cannot 
be tolerated. The settlement as currently proposed is too lenient 
and represents a slap on the wrist to one of the most powerful 
corporations on the face of the earth. Its wealth is vast and its 
power to control the direction of both hardware and software vendors 
is unhealthy and illegal because is unfairly uses the monopoly it 
has on the desktop to control others and dictate unfair and 
restrictive business practices on companies that have no other 
choice but to use or sell Microsoft products.
    Please reconsider the proposed settlement as several states have 
requested and propose a real penalty on this guilty party.
    Douglas Kingston
    U.S. Citizen
    London, U.K.



MTC-00018743

From: Mark T. Stapleton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an engineer with many years of experience using Microsoft's 
operating systems, from DOS forward to Windows 2000, and many years 
of experience using and utilizing resources on the Internet, I am 
strongly opposed to what I consider to be a weak and toothless 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft Corporation.
    It is clear that Microsoft has violated basic business ethics, 
as well as the letter of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and that it's 
continued unregulated dominance is not in the interest of consumers 
and competitors. This is not my conclusion, but of the Court of 
Appeals. It is also clear to me personally that Microsoft continues, 
despite the judgement already passed down, to use practices that are 
unfair and unethical. Web sites built with Microsoft applications 
don't work with Netscape Navigator and other Internet browser 
software. The Windows ME and Windows XP platforms released since the 
judgement both compromise personal security on the Web by design, 
not by accident or by error.
    A failure to act more strongly than currently planned will 
simply encourage this irresponsible behemoth to continue making 
changes to products which are more self-serving than useful, and 
more in it's own interest than in the public interest or in the 
interest of the United States government. Please don't be satisfied 
to let things stand as is. You would be doing the entire country, 
and indeed the world, a big disfavor.
    Sincerely,
    Mark T. Stapleton
    owner, WaterMark Design, LLC
    Mechanical and Electromechanical Design
    Cornelius, North Carolina
    704-895-6475



MTC-00018744

From: David Ahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is severely 
flawed, for the following two reasons:
    1. Although it makes an effort to allow software developers more 
access to Windows APIs than they have had in the past, Microsoft has 
and will continue to control the computer industry through the use 
of its own technologies and file formats, unless specific provisions 
are made to stop it. Microsoft Office, for instance, uses 
``closed'' (unpublished) file formats for word processing, 
spreadsheets, etc., forcing users to purchase their products or else 
struggle with complicated and imperfect file translation programs. 
Or Microsoft's Passport user id system, which has the effect of 
forcing internet users into using windows to access certain webpages 
or net services. For the sake of users and competing technology 
companies alike, all of Microsoft's file formats and all other 
restrictive technologies must be ``open'': fully published 
and documented.
    2. Although the court found Microsoft essentially crippled Sun 
Microsystem's Java by using writing its own software and, as of 
Windows XP, failing to even include Java support in their operating 
system, no provisions were made to include a standardized version of 
java (or a version of java at all!) in the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    David Ahl



MTC-00018745

From: Lance Simmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I use the Linux operating system. There are many programs 
designed for Windows which I can in fact run under Linux, using 
WINE, a Linux-native re-implementation of the Windows API.
    Microsoft, however, includes language in the EULA for some of 
its software, such as the MSNBC News Alert program, which prohibits 
me from running the software under any operating system other than 
Windows. It seems manifestly unjust that I should be legally bound 
to run software only on the operating system for which it was 
originally designed. Given that I can make the software run using my 
preferred operating system, it seems absurd that Microsoft should 
have the power to license the software to me only on condition that 
I do not do so. I believe that Microsoft has deliberately designed 
some of its EULA's for operating-system-independent software in such 
a way as to unfairly reinforce its monopoly in the market for 
operating systems. I hope you will take this into account as you go 
forward with the Tunney Act proceedings.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 26625]]

    Lance Simmons
    [email protected]



MTC-00018746

From: Mark Warkentin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my objections to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft case. I have followed these issues carefully, and 
feel that the proposed settlement will do little or nothing to 
resolve the harm that Microsoft has inflicted on the consumer, or to 
impair Microsoft's ability to abuse their monopoly power in the 
future.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Warkentin
    Elrama, PA



MTC-00018747

From: gfonda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greg Fonda
5200 Lenoraway Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27613
(919) 785-9077
January 23, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement should be accepted and this 
case should be ended once and for all. I have used Windows products 
since the late 1980s and find it remarkable that the government of 
my country brought this suit in the first place and inconceivable 
that a group of only nine states refuse to let it end. The current 
settlement more than adequately penalizes Microsoft in a way that 
will be beneficial to it's competitors. In other words, if there 
ever was a lack of competition in the computer software market, this 
settlement will restore it.
    I personally enjoy the convenience and cost effectiveness of 
having an operating system that can do multiple things. Some would 
like to freeze in time the definition of what is and what is not an 
operating system and that is ridiculous. The world does not stand 
still, it is always moving, and the world of technology moves twice 
as fast. I can't imagine a current day operating system without a 
graphical user interface or one without the ability to connect with 
and understand the Internet. Tomorrow it may be electronic commerce 
or digital media that we cannot do without. The needs of computer 
users change and the operating system must be able to change with 
them. The current settlement allows Microsoft to continue to improve 
and evolve their operating system as our needs dictate, while 
providing it's competitors with all the information and opportunity 
they need to create products that compete with Microsoft's own. It 
further gives the computer manufacturers the power to place any of 
these competing products right along side of, or in place of 
Microsoft's offerings. Competitors will have the information they 
need to create great products and the access they need to get those 
products in front of consumers. And to make sure all goes as 
planned, the settlement even includes a provision for a panel of 
independent monitors to make sure everything is as it should be. I 
cannot see how either the remaining nine states or even Microsoft's 
competitors could request anything more. The goal of this case is 
not to destroy Microsoft, but to help it's competitors and one 
assumes, by extension, us consumers. That goal is achieved with the 
current settlement, so please do not let things go any further.
    I fear that for some, this case has turned into a contest where 
the only acceptable outcome is total ``victory'', defined 
as the complete deconstruction of Microsoft. As an American I am 
proud that our country leads the way in the computer software field. 
These feelings of pride are probably similar to how people felt 
about the American automotive industry in the 1950s and 1960s. 
Please do not let the personal feelings and ambitions of a small 
minority destroy that.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Fonda



MTC-00018748

From: Tyler Lemke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please punish Microsoft. They are using their $34 BILLION in 
cash to force their version of the internet on the rest of the 
world. Whatever they did in the browser area, they are doing again 
in the online digital video format area. They are buying portions of 
digital media content streaming companies, and telling them to only 
use their version content and abounding the other formats.
    Microsoft uses closed proprietary standards and not open 
standards. Look at Sun Microsystems and Apple, they both use open 
standards for networking and web services, but not Microsoft, this 
is how they will force their .NET strategy on everybody. Then it 
will be too late before the Justice Departments realises what 
happened. Then when the Justice Department tries to do anything, 
they will be accused of harming the economy. Microsoft needs to be 
stopped before they cause their damage with their .NET closed 
internet standards. Look what they did to JAVA. They took an open 
standard, modified it so it would only work with their systems, 
breaking an open standard. They are bullies and they do not play 
fair. Look towards Sun Microsystems as a role model for how computer 
companies should be behaving.
    Tyler Lemke
    P O Box 391062
    Omaha, NE 68139



MTC-00018749

From: Robert Kopf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a BAD IDEA. It fails to protect 
consumers from future monopolistic practices and does nothing to 
address the underlying market power of Microsoft. Thank you for 
taking this input.
    Bob Kopf
    [email protected]
    Phone 651-645-3300
    FAX 651-645-3700



MTC-00018750

From: Steve Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    I am deeply concerned about the apparent failure of the 
governmnet to deal in a meaningful way with the Microsoft monopoly 
and the weakness of the proposed settlement. This company has not 
changed its behavior or attitude in any significant way since this 
entire case began. It should be obvious to anyone that the issue is 
no longer about the Netscape Browser. Recently I concluded several 
transactions on Ebay and, much to my dismay, I was forced to enter a 
Microsoft Passport number to complete the process. Just watch, soon 
there will be a ``Microsoft Tax'' on all significant 
Internet monetary transactions. Too many companies know they will 
lose out in the marketplace if they resist Microsoft's agenda.
    Microsoft should be forced to open up its operating system 
source code. It should be limited in its ability to make company 
acquisitions for at least eight years. Its continued use of the 
well-worn bundling trick (remember IBM?) to freeze out the 
inovations of competitors must be stopped. Is my government big 
enough and technically competent enough to take this company on and 
make a real difference in the market place?
    Stephen Nelson
    69 N. French Drive
    Prescott, AZ 86303
    [email protected]



MTC-00018751

From: Holland, Keith
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement would not benefit 
consumers.
    Thank you,
    Keith Holland



MTC-00018752

From: bald man
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You are letting Microsoft off too easily.



MTC-00018753

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I cannot understand why Microsoft is being let off so easily. If 
there was more competition we would have much more reliable 
operating systems to use. I feel the settlement doesn't go far 
enough to impose just penalties on Microsoft, and they'll go back to 
their old ways of crushing competition, which is bad for American 
business. I feel they should open up their APIs and early access 
programs to all developers, not just those they want to with, as 
that is unfair competition.
    Sincerely
    Armand Mathieu

[[Page 26626]]



MTC-00018754

From: Spencer Proffit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's illegal and harmful actions will not be improved by 
the proposed settlement, and may actually give them license to do 
worse. It should be remebered that this action was caused by thier 
abuse of the previous consent decree.
    Spencer Proffit
    WhizBang! Labs West



MTC-00018755

From: Benjamin MacKay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement accomplishes nothing, and Microsoft 
once again gets away with its illegal business practices.



MTC-00018756

From: Jonathan Korman
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have worked in the computer industry for eight years. 
Countless times, in ways large and small, I have seen how Microsoft 
has used its monopoly control over operating systems to prevent 
competition from other providers of applications and services. This 
has pervasive effects throughout the industry, affecting nearly 
every software and hardware provider, in turn affecting us all as 
direct and indirect users of computer systems. These effects are 
corrosive to healthy competition, resulting in poorer-quality 
software and hardware products.
    Speaking specifically as a professional interaction designer, 
concerned with making products easier for people to use, I can say 
that Microsoft commonly creates technology limitations intended to 
support their monopoly power that result in making computer systems 
harder to use. Microsoft's monopolistic practices are thus directly 
harmful to consumers.
    I have followed the many legal challenges to Microsoft in past 
years with some attention. Microsoft has repeatedly ignored or 
worked around behavioral remedies, and I was hopeful that the court 
would embrace a structural remedy. I was disappointed when I learned 
that the court would pursue a behavioral remedy instead; reviewing 
the current proposed final settlement, it is clear to me that it is 
completely inadequate to prevent future violations of both the 
letter and spirit of anti-trust law. In fact, I expect that in 
practice the settlement will effectively give Microsoft license to 
continue and perhaps even expand many key monopolistic anti-
competitive practices, as many commentators have predicted. I 
strongly urge the court to reconsider its settlement in favor of a 
much more vigorous remedy. I believe that a structural remedy is 
appropriate, but even a more strongly framed behavioral remedy could 
be a dramatically more appropriate response.
    Jonathan Korman
    Principal designer
    [email protected]
    650 213.5121 Cooper
    2345 Yale St
    Palo Alto CA 94306
    http://www.cooper.com/
    650 855.0250



MTC-00018757

From: Chip Richards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to those opposing the current form 
of the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft. I have 
been in the computer business since 1974. I have seen the growth of 
the computer industry from its relatively esoteric origins into the 
commercial giant it is today. Computers are how I make my living, so 
this subject, and this settlement, are understandably of great 
interest to me.
    Microsoft has done some good things for the computer industry 
and for other businesses and individuals who depend on it. I used to 
have a very high opinion of the company and its products; I even 
applied for a job there at one time. But over the years, I have seen 
them change from a source of benefit for world commerce into a 
distinct liability.
    Were I a lawyer, I'd write a brief addressing the specifics of 
the settlement. But I'm not-as a software engineer, I can only 
speak about the world as it looks through my lenses. And I know a 
lead weight when I see one. I can tell when commerce is in a 
stranglehold. I can see that overall technological progress has 
slowed, and is threatening to stop entirely. And Microsoft is at the 
heart of all of it. I have nothing but personal evidence to offer; I 
doubt if anyone has the time to read all the tales I have to tell 
about Microsoft's negative effects on my colleagues and their 
businesses, so I won't waste time putting them here.
    And I can't argue that it's only the USA which is hurt by 
Microsoft's unchecked control of computer software, and indirectly, 
hardware, technology. It's pretty much the whole world. So we're not 
falling *behind* anyone else, we're just falling. Are you reading 
this on a Microsoft system, or was it printed from one? Did the 
purchasers of that system have a choice? A *real* choice? Does that 
tell you anything? If a small company tried purposely to impede 
other companies and enterprises, they'd no doubt fail. But Microsoft 
has the reach and the clout to make their wishes become reality, 
time after time.
    If the last two centuries have taught us anything, it is that 
technological progress, in general, benefits everyone. The only sure 
thing I can say today is that everything in my heart and my mind, 
and all my experience, is telling me that Microsoft is intentionally 
impeding the progress of computer technology in the name of profit. 
Their power over us has increased, and is increasing, exponentially. 
Curb it now, before the option no longer exists.
    W. M. Richards
    NiEstu



MTC-00018758

From: paul impola
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case is a 
very bad idea, which would in the long run actually strengthen 
Microsoft. I firmly believe that the only fair settlement would 
require Microsoft to release the code for its Windows operating 
system. This course would have immediate major benefits for all 
users of Microsoft products, and would restore competition to the OS 
and browser fields.
    Thank you for reading my message.
    Paul Impola



MTC-00018759

From: Joel
To: Microsoft ATR, [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want you to know how much I object to the proposed settlement 
regarding Microsoft being a monopoly and using that monopoly to 
unfairly eliminate competition. I'll just quote Russell Pavlicek's 
article from InfoWorld.com, as he's summed it as well or better than 
I can. I hope you will read it and understand how this is not only 
NOT punishment, and NOT just a slap on the wrist for MS, but 
actually a boon to them.
    I will stand as a co signer of Dan Kegel's comments.
    Joel Leland Oceanside, CA
    Small Business Owner
    ``To be enterprising is to keep your eyes open and your 
mind active. It's to be skilled enough, confident enough, creative 
enough and disciplined enough to seize opportunities that present 
themselves...regardless of the economy.''-Jim Rohn

    RUSSELL PAVLICEK: ``The Open Source'' from 
InfoWorld.com, Wednesday, January 23, 2002
    I'VE RECEIVED A number of requests to address the pending (as of 
this writing) settlement of the civil anti-trust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. Under the pending agreement, Microsoft will be obligated 
to provide hardware and software to thousands of under funded school 
districts across the country. The logic, if you can call it that, is 
that such schools could benefit greatly from receiving the 
technology they lack. Undeniably, there is an emotionally compelling 
case for this. A gigantic company, found guilty of doing wrong, is 
ordered to help the underprivileged. ``We need to do it for the 
children,'' cry the politicos. ``Think of the 
children!''
    ``For the children.'' That's the phrase politicians in 
Washington use to justify an action so irrational that it cannot be 
justified any other way.
    How can I properly characterize this solution? It is like a 
court ordering a convicted drug dealer to give out more free samples 
of heroin to underprivileged children to ensure that their poverty 
does not deprive them of the opportunity to become addicted.
    Sure, public classrooms need more technology. And it is 
especially important that children who don't have as many 
opportunities in life get assistance. But that

[[Page 26627]]

is not adequate justification for assigning the fox to guard the hen 
house.
    Personally, I like the counterproposal put forward by Red Hat: 
Let Microsoft donate money for computing resources for under funded 
schools, but let those donations go toward hardware only; then 
populate those machines with open-source software.
    Why open source? Consider the future: What will the schools do 
when they need to upgrade? If you give schools Microsoft software, 
they will be caught in the endless upgrade cycle that has 
characterized life in the Microsoft world. Those upgrades will cost 
money, money that these targeted school districts, by definition, 
cannot spare.
    Instead, arming schools with open-source software will have two 
benefits. First, it will set schools down a long-term path that they 
can afford. The cost of obtaining open-source upgrades is trivial. 
Without low-cost software upgrades, all those nice shiny computers 
run the risk of becoming boat anchors in short order. I'm sure 
someone is saying, ``But open source is too difficult to 
administer!'' Such does not have to be the case, but I'll deal 
with that issue in a future column.
    Also, the Red Hat proposal does not reward Microsoft in the long 
term. If a company is convicted of overpowering markets, why would 
you reward them by putting one of the few markets they don't lead 
under their control? This sounds a lot like a seed-unit program for 
education, not the penalty imposed from losing a trial.
    Corporate misdeeds are supposed to earn punishment, not long-
term investment opportunities. I believe we would all be better off 
if the courts acknowledged the difference between the two.



MTC-00018760

From: Cody Pollock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:34pm
Subject: Re : Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    With regard to the Microsoft Antitrust case, I am expressing my 
total support for the prosecution of MS and their questionable 
business practices. Microsoft have slowly taken on a progressively 
more aggressive stance to controlling 100% of the market and it 
needs to stop now. Inferior software products that take away all of 
a user's freedom of choice and independence are a sick joke. Apart 
from the fact MS products are behind the ball, full of security 
holes and are basically a piece of advertising software that (tries 
to) override any piece of third party software that would compete 
with an MS product. Open source needs to be made more public, so 
money-grubbers like Bill Gates won't get their way, and everyone 
gets a fair crack at the market, and the PC industry, especially 
since most `family' computer users just want a PC that 
works, not takes advantage of their lack of knowledge.
    Burn, Microsoft, Burn.
    Regards
    Cody Pollock
    IT Support/Administration
    Email: [email protected]
    Ove Arup & Partners
    Level 12, The Tower
    360 Elizabeth St, Melbourne
    Phone: +61 3 96636811



MTC-00018761

From: Peter Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Henderson
    2795 Wildflower lane
    Snellville GA 30039.



MTC-00018762

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is singularly responsible for me buying 5 computers 
and a lot of software over the last 15 years. This benefited 
Microsoft but also the computer makers and many software companies 
besides Microsoft Without Microsoft providing LOW COST and user 
friendly software, I and millions of others wouldn't even be using 
computers today.
    Now the government inspired by Microsoft competitors and 
politicians from their states wants to punish the company that built 
our great high tech system. Certainly Microsoft has a monopoly but 
only because their competitors could not compete. Ask Me I know. I 
tried to buy other operating systems and there were no good ones 
available and there was nothing available for anywhere near the 
price of windows. When is the government going to tell these 
complainers to build better products and they wouldn't have to 
worry? All this from a guy who doesn't even like Microsoft, but lets 
be fair, they did a hell of a job and don't deserve the screw job 
the government is providing.
    Please settle and let the world move on.
    Frank Suttell
    3227 Magnolia Blvd. West
    Seattle WA. 98199



MTC-00018763

From: Adam A. Turetzky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this remedy is wrong and a very bad idea which would 
only further increase their proven monopoly on the software 
industry! I am very much against this remedy!
    Adam Turetzky
    Skokie, IL



MTC-00018764

From: McNew, Ronald
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not think that the proposed Final Judgment has really even 
acknowledged the issues involved. It would be better for the DOJ to 
drop the case, instead of accepting this ``I'm tired and I want 
to go home'' band-aid, because dropping the case would not 
establish precedent, to the undoing of future cases. If you truly 
consider Microsoft to be guilty of anticompetitive practices, please 
adopt effective (i.e. expensive) remedies. This is my personal 
opinion, and is not to be taken as representative of Intel's or any 
other entity's position.
    Thanks
    Ron McNew
    There seems to be much confusion about what we mean when we use 
the word ``art''. I have a recommendation. We eliminate 
the word ``art'' and replace it with ``work'' 
and develop the following descriptions:
    1. Work that goes beyond its functional intention and moves us 
in deep and mysterious ways we call a great work.
    2. Work that is conceived and executed with elegance and rigor 
we call good work.
    3. Work that meets its intended need honestly and without 
pretense we call simply work.
    4. Everything else, the sad and shoddy stuff of daily life, can 
come under the heading of bad work.-Milton Glaser



MTC-00018765

From: John Econopouly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Summary: I am against the proposed settlement. It is a slap on 
the wrist that Microsoft will easily outmaneuver.
    I have 15 years experience as a software developer, on numerous 
platforms, including Windows. I believe the proposed settlement is 
completely unfair-while it eliminates some of the 
anticompetitive practices that Microsoft is guilty of, it does not 
go far enough, allowing many to continue, and allowing too many 
loopholes for Microsoft to avoid the rest. Ultimately it will lead 
to an even stronger monopoly at ever-greater expense to consumers 
and innovation. Microsoft's stance throughout the trial, and 
previously-their disregard for the law-should have been 
a strong clue that far more drastic measures than these are required 
to

[[Page 26628]]

avoid (and police) further illegalities-if there is any 
loophole at all, they will find it and use it. Even if there were no 
loopholes-well, a better enforcement mechanism will be needed.
    Some specific problems I find with the PFJ:
    Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities 
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems-e.g. they purposely broke their applications on 
DR-DOS. I don't see anything to keep them from doing that 
again.
    ``API'' is defined so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered. ``Windows'' is defined so narrowly 
that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, 
Pocket PC, or the X-Box-operating systems that all use the 
Win32 API and are advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.



MTC-00018766

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I was recently made aware of my rights under the Tunney Act to 
voice my opinion regarding the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
anti-trust trial. I would like to state, in no uncertain terms, that 
I am opposed to the terms of the settlement as they stand now.
    How is it that a company can abuse its monopoly position (as I 
understand, Microsoft was found guilty of this crime) and then be 
allowed to maintain that monopoly? How is it that the only 
punishment for someone who breaks this law is they are told they can 
no longer break it?
    I am particularly incensed that Microsoft may be allowed, as 
part of its ``punishment,'' to force its software on 
schoolchildren (another generation of captive customers) thereby 
making it that much easier to perpetuate its monopoly for decades to 
come. The fact that Microsoft will only point to this as some act of 
public good is even more appalling.
    I do not want to sound maudlin, but how, in the years to come, 
do I explain this to my young children? Perhaps it won't matter, 
because if this settlement is allowed, they may have no other legal 
choice than to use Microsoft software anyway.
    Microsoft has proven, through repeated action in and out of the 
courtroom, that it has no respect for the government of the United 
States. If this is truly ``government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people,'' then I can only presume that 
their lack of respect extends to me.
    Please reconsider this settlement. Microsoft must be truly 
punished for what it has done to true, healthy competition in the 
computer industry.
    Thank you for your time.
    Walter J. McConnell III
    639 W. 14th Street
    Tempe, AZ 85281



MTC-00018767

From: shaw, martha
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi. I actually like Microsoft, and I think it's a good idea to 
settle the DOJ case. But NOT before asking Microsoft to face the 
many charges against them, and stop to think about them like the 
smart people they are. Charges, as my rabid colleagues point out, 
like: Have you ever been burned by a Microsoft product that did not 
act the way it was supposed to? How about a 3rd party product that 
did not work on a MS operating system like it was supposed to? Have 
you ever read the EULA for Frontpage? Did you know that you are NOT 
allowed to use Frontpage to create sites that say anything negative 
about Microsoft? Have you ever read the EULA for Visual C++? Did you 
know that you are not allowed to use Visual C++ to create an 
application that works on a non-MS operating system? Do you not like 
these things and do you not like Microsoft's non-competitive ways 
and plans for world domination?
    My colleague, who is a very very smart programmer, is obviously 
upset. And Microsoft, he has a point. Why do you act in a way that 
makes people who buy your product not like you? Is this a healthy 
attitude, discouraging your customers? Everytime you decide to start 
plotting for world domination, you lose. In fact, the smartest idea 
you had was your original idea-to license an operating system, 
rather than selling it outright. Brilliant! Brilliant idea! God, I 
wish I'd thought of it.
    So many times you make great products! So many successes, like 
Visual Basic, etc., are an American tradition. You change the world 
with your innovation, and your organization. You take a topic like 
an e-book, and you step over the many fumbling people out there 
waving sketchy business plans, and you run down the field with it. 
My Pocket PC-I love my Pocket PC. I want a Tablet PC. I want 
to leave desktop computing behind, and go mobile and wireless! My 
Internet Explorer, my Outlook Express... Microsoft, you can be the 
American Dream in motion.
    But some things you do are really embarassing to the tradition 
of great computer software.
    1. You began the tradition of charging customers for mistakes 
you made in your software, by cutting out free technical support, 
and 1-800 numbers. Shameful. Why don't you go sit by Ron Lay 
for 15 minutes and think about this. Why don't you stick up for your 
products by saying, ``We bet we can handle the volume, because 
we know we designed it well.'' Well, OK, I know that's a lot to 
ask. But surely you could give away a little tech support? Even in 
jail you get one phone call free.
    2. You hide everything in .dlls so that our computers are black 
boxes. So when they act up, we have to pay to call you, to find out 
it's a ``known problem''. Tsk, tsk. Would it be so 
terrible to tell us what it is, and what it does?
    3. You release buggy software, when if any company has the money 
to thoroughly check their software, it's gotta be you. I know that 
perfection is probably unattainable, but come on-the FBI has 
to send America a memo on your point releases now?
    4. I always thought it was fine that you include Internet 
Explorer with Windows. If Netscape made an operating system, they 
would have too! But do you have to throw tantrums and punish your 
partner vendors for wanting to include Netscape in their specs? 
What's next-do you want your own third-world country to 
control like some tinpot leader? Get over it, Microsoft. Stop being 
so infernally petty-you're the 600 lb. gorilla. Choose to be 
handsome about it. Let your vendors make their own decisions, and 
you can thus concentrate on making IE continually world class. 
Microsoft, you're golden, because you had, and continue to have, 
great ideas. And you're smart. You don't need to ``kill'' 
the competition. In fact, you need competition in the United 
States-it's the law. When Apple was going belly-up, you had to 
prop them up. Because you need competition. The world is moving 
toward application servers, mobile connectedness everywhere, 
personal robotics, and an information and learning universe. There 
is opportunity to be excellent. To even-sometimes-do the 
right thing. Hackers will continue to plague you, because hackers 
follow what everybody has-what everybody uses. And right now, 
that's Microsoft. Microsoft, grow up. Does IBM continually act like 
the kid who wants ALL the pizza at the party? Well, yeah, probably. 
But they're more subtle about it. Please. While you have those 
dreams of grandeur and glory, remember to use finesse.



MTC-00018768

From: ghost1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Under the comment period required by the Tunney Act, I would 
like to register my opinion on the proposed settlement of the 
landmark Microsoft Anti-trust case.
    This settlement is not acceptable. Microsoft is a vicious 
monopolistic predator that has stifled innovation in the computer 
industry for years and this settlement will not address or correct 
any of the past abuses, nor will it discourage future abuses. On the 
contrary, as we have seen, this has just emboldened MS that they can 
do anything without serious repercussions. I urge you to revisit the 
facts of the case and the trial record. They outline a track record 
of anti-trust abuses unlike any ever seen before. I recommend a 
hefty punitive fine, and the requirement that Microsoft publish its 
product API's to the general public. Microsoft has made billions of 
dollars on its monopoly, and continues to squeeze its clients for 
every dollar. Fair competition must be restored to the Industry if 
America is to retain its pre-eminence in the computer technology 
field.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Carnell
    Director Digital-Ghost Studios
    www.digital-ghost.com



MTC-00018769

From: Karaffa, Linda
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'

[[Page 26629]]

Date: 1/23/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Proposed settlement is a bad idea
    Linda Karaffa
    Information Technology Group
    Weatherhead School of Management
    Case Western Reserve University
    Cleveland, Ohio 44106



MTC-00018770

From: peter gillespie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    hi doj. I think that the settlement with microsoft is unfair to 
the public. economic experts estimated that the monopoly effect 
added &20.00 dolars to the cost of each copy of the Windows 
operating system. the antitrust laws provide for triple damages. 
this means that a fair settlement would require microsoft to refund 
$60.00 to each purchaser of their os. they have the records to 
enable them to do this. furthermore the settlement as proposed does 
nothing to prevent further abuse of their monopoly. the company has 
a long history as an antitrust scofflaw and ignoring rulings that 
are the least bit ambiguous.
    do your job and protect the public interest. untie explorer and 
outlook from windows. unless the entire package is free it is stupid 
to accept their position that ie is free with the system. for 
certain they are deducting the costs of development from the income 
from windows. this means they are charging for it.
    sincerely,
    peter gillespie
    p.s. lest you think i have a financial interest in this case i 
have never purchased or owned a computer capable of running windows 
or dos and when i get a new mac the first thing i do is delete all 
of the microsoft programs that come with it. this greatly improves 
stability and reduces vulnerability to viri on the internet. pg



MTC-00018771

From: Brett I. Holcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:34pm
Subject: MS Case
    As a Taxpayer I am disgusted that the Bush administration is 
letting Microsoft off the hook. I have been a long time support of 
Bush and the Republican party but this is not acceptable.
    It has been proved without a shadow of doubt that MS attempted 
to gain a monoply and used any means, including illegal ones to do 
that. IBM tried the same thing in the 70's and spent many years 
paying for the mistake. MS needs to be punished or they will 
continue to extend their monoply. I am a supporter of free 
enterprise and have opposed restrictions imposed on business by the 
Democrates but when free enterprise becomes a monoply that can 
control all aspects of our lives it is time to stop it-that's 
what the antitrust laws are for. MS broke them and needs to be 
penalized.
    Brett I. Holcomb
    AKA Grunt



MTC-00018772

From: Diana Brager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let me first say that I watched in horror as the justice 
department pursued legal action against Microsoft under Anti-Trust 
laws. Microsoft is not a monopoly. This case had no merit in the 
courts. A political agenda was created to show a company what will 
happen if they do not contribute heavily to the candidate's 
political campaigns. I believe another word for this is extortion. 
The states saw ``Tobacco Settlement'' size dollars added 
to their state budgets. The companies that pressured the justice 
department to take action against Microsoft weighed in heavy on the 
political campaigns for ``favors''. These companies asked 
the court to do what their own ineptness could not do. They wanted 
my tax dollars to be used to destroy a company that has provided so 
much innovation to the technology world.
    1. As a consumer, I have not been hurt by Microsoft. Past 
experience that required me to learn software without a common base 
was more difficult and required extensive training. When Microsoft 
developed the Windows operating system it made learning new programs 
refreshing.
    2. Literally, hundreds of new companies were created. These new 
companies had a base to build their programs and market their 
technology. If the software was written to operate on Windows 
operating system it had certain common features that made it easy to 
learn and helped the production time on my job.
    3. As to the MSN internet explorer being bundled with software 
on new computers, it is a matter of preference. My husband and I 
have had numerous Internet Service Providers. They have each 
displayed their own home page as the default. Personally, we enjoy 
the MSN format. Quickly and easily we changed the home page on our 
computer from the Internet Service Provider home page to MSN home 
page. This could readily be done in reverse if someone does not want 
MSN. It is not an issue of monopoly. MSN does not have to be used if 
the consume does not want it use. There are many options.
    It is for the above reasons as well as many others, I believe 
the Microsoft settlement is more than fair. When we have:
-Companies crumbling around us
-Thousands of workers being added to the unemployment rolls 
daily
-Cries for the need to rebuild America
    Why would the justice department want to weaken and perhaps 
destroy a successful company that has helped 100's perhaps 1000's of 
smaller companies have Microsoft to thank for their beginning and 
put 1000's of American's to work? Please do not take this farce 
further. We have wasted too much of America's money and time 
attempting to tear down a company built with the pioneer spirit that 
made America the finest country on this planet.
    Thank you for your time and attention to my opinions.



MTC-00018773

From: Kevin Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has already 
shown that they don't abide by the spirit of consent decrees. A more 
lasting solution is needed, like breaking up the company.



MTC-00018774

From: Phoenix Barca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the 1980s, when AT&T was taken before the justices and 
found to have abused its monopoly and caused harm to the consumers, 
the justices ordered AT&T to break up and to share its 
technology with other long distance service providers. Because of 
that decision, consumers today now enjoy lower cost, more efficent, 
better long distance service.
    The same should be done to Microsoft. For the past decade, 
Microsoft has illegaly used its monopoly to shut many of its 
competitors out of ``its'' playing field of the Operating 
Systems industry. Microsoft, like AT&T, does not offer a better, 
higher quality service or product. Instead, it uses its position to 
fix OS prices and gouge the consumer. This is exactly what AT&T 
did in the 1980s. AT&T was punished with far more than a mere 
slap on the wrist. Why should Microsoft be treated any differently 
for the same behavior? It makes no sense.
    Also, monopolies are dangerous to the consumer and to the 
government. A recent example is the Enron disaster. Imagine if 
Microsoft were left alone to maintain and abuse its monopoly, only 
to one day crash and go bankrupt. The effects and damage would be 
catastrophic on the US economy and the IT industry.
    Kelly Beard
    Vicksburg, Mississippi



MTC-00018775

From: Brian Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:37pm
Subject: not good enough!
    As a consumer I find myself forced into using solutions that 
rely on substandard Microsoft technology more and more. Ignoring the 
fact that their products are of poor quality, their monopoly is 
obviously having a negative affect on competition in the 
marketplace. The settlement, as it stands, isn't nearly enough. Much 
more has to be done to protect my rights as a consumer.
    Brian Campbell
    Creative Lead
    http://www.KBkids.com
    (303) 226-8681



MTC-00018776

From: Jingoro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Jason C. Glass
    1503 Misty Cove
    Austin, TX 78754

[[Page 26630]]



MTC-00018777

From: Kyan Mulligan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Without going into a lot of detail, I strongly support harsher 
penalties toward Microsoft, and a restructuring of their business to 
quell anti-competitive practices. Their settlement should not allow 
them to gain an edge in the education market, one of Apple's last 
niches.
    Kyan Mulligan
    Student, College of William and Mary



MTC-00018778

From: Carol Wahrer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    Briefly, I feel the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I agree 
with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis. This analysis 
is available at the following URL: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by Kegel's document. 
Specifically:
-The Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue.
-The settlement would delay the emergence of competing 
Windows-compatible operating systems.
    Therefore, the settlement not in the public interest. It should 
not be adopted without substantial revision to address these 
problems.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Wahrer
    544 Nightingale St.
    Livermore, CA 94550
    (925) 447-8759
    [email protected]



MTC-00018780

From: Travis Riley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am just writing to let you know that I feel that the proposed 
settlement for the Microsoft case is bad idea, I don't agree with it 
at all.
    Travis Riley
    [email protected]
    Visit the TuxBox Project at...
    www.tuxboxproject.com



MTC-00018781

From: Kimberley Burchett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a senior-level programmer, having worked in this industry 
for the past seven years.
    I object to the proposed microsoft settlement because, while it 
does require microsoft to release details of their protocols and 
file formats, it allows them to obstruct the process of gaining 
access to that information. Specifically, the requirement that the 
would-be competitor ``ask'' microsoft for the information 
(thereby tipping off microsoft to the existence of all competition 
ahead of time), and that the competitor have a legitimate 
``business'' reason for asking, present too high a barrier 
to entry.
    Microsoft knows that a significant portion of the competition 
that they face will come from open-source developers. It is probable 
that the difficulty in gaining access to this information will deter 
many would-be competitors from even bothering, given that these 
developers will be working on their own initiative, without pay, and 
without any legal force should their requests be ignored.
    I once worked on an open-source project that examined java class 
files. The microsoft java compiler had the ability to embed 
additional information in the class files that it produced, and I 
wanted my product to be able to gain access to that information. 
Microsoft made a cursory attempt at documenting their format, but 
specific numbers were omitted- these numbers were necessary in 
order for my tool to be able to recognize the microsoft-specific 
information at all. I sent an email to the named contact for their 
specification, requesting clarification. I received no response. As 
I was but a single individual, I had no ability to command their 
attention.
    I suspect that microsoft would similarly ``actively 
neglect'' any future specifications that they might be required 
to be released by this settlement. Making the specifications public 
on a website would be EASIER for them than only releasing them upon 
request. And I expect that making them public would provide a 
greater incentive to make them comprehensive as well.
    Kimberley Burchett
    Endeca Technologies, Inc.
    Cambridge, MA



MTC-00018782

From: J Sloan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    As a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen, I feel I must express my 
outrage at the possibility that the convicted monopolist will get 
away with its crimes.
    Please stop this monster before it causes further damage to the 
computing industry.
    Best Regards,
    Joseph Sloan
    Fullerton, Ca



MTC-00018783

From: James Affeld
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the proposed settlement for several reasons.
    1) It does not change any of the anticompetitive behaviors 
because the focus is too narrow. Forcing ms to allow other 
implementations of java is irrelevant to MS strategy. It 
specifically excludes non-commercial software (``Open 
Source'') from consideration for open API's. This is crucial, 
because open source projects are the most significant competition MS 
has.
    2) It doesn't really punish MS for its actions. Remember: MS has 
been found guilty.



MTC-00018784

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00018785

From: Ophir Gottlieb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is unfair... Do not let Microsoft buy their way 
out again... For example: Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires 
vendors of competing middleware to meet ``reasonable technical 
requirements'' seven months before new releases of Windows, yet 
it does not require Microsoft to disclose those requirements in 
advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    This is one example of many that is unfair...
    Thank you



MTC-00018786

From: M(038)ECompeau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Office(TM) monopoly
    What is being done related to the Microsoft monopoly for office-
suite software? Surely, Microsoft must have 99.5+% market share for 
their Excel and Word office productivity applications? It is said 
that the reason they included PocketWord and PocketExcel with the 
PocketPC operating system on their handheld devices is due to their 
interest in preserving the Desktop PC ``Office'' 
dominance, and preventing the encroachment of other comers in that 
segment. Why is this not being investigated or discussed?? Why are 
you not speaking to Corel (WordPerfect Suite) or IBM (Lotus 
SmartSuite) about MS'' anticompetitive actions related to 
Office productivity software?? (comments of an individual concerned 
citizen)
    Mike Compeau
    1050 N Keel RIdge Road
    Hermitage, PA 16148
    724-962-5944
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00018787

From: Brent Grassman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't let Microsoft just buy their way out of this. They 
have broken the law. They should be punished. Money, even one 
billion dollars, mean nothing to them. You

[[Page 26631]]

know they will just keep up the same dirty techniques. Here's what 
to do:
    1) Open the source code.
    2) Break them up.
    Thank you.



MTC-00018788

From: Kevin Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to add my name to the record of individuals opposed to 
the proposed settlement of the antitrust case against Microsoft 
Corporation. I am a professional user of computers with more than 
twenty years in the industry, and was shocked by the cynical 
disregard for the law, for society, and for individual rights amply 
proven by the prosecution's evidence. It is utterly unacceptable 
that the court would accept the self-serving attempt by Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly even further by ``donating'' its 
products-to a captive audience at a price they set 
themselves!-in order to buy its way out of the appropriate 
remedy.
    Kevin Martin,
    Systems Administrator, GLOBIX
    I am speaking as a private citizen.
    (212)625-7376
    



MTC-00018789

From: bill hawe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-Bad Idea
    Dear Sirs:
    As a citizen of the United States and an avid computer user, I 
find the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case to be 
horrific. The proposed settlement does little if anything to curb 
the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft. It does not punish them 
for breaking the law. In fact, it may even further their almost 
exclusive monopoly. I do not understand why the government would 
undertake a massive legal effort costing large sums of our taxpayer 
dollars, win the resulting case and then ask for such a paltry 
penalty. This settlement will not protect me as a consumer (OS cost 
per user keeps going up), me as an independent software developer 
(don't make to good a product or Microsoft will integrate a clone in 
the OS, a la InternetExplorer, or Window Media Player or ...), nor 
me as an investor (Netscape being the most famous example).
    So please reconsider this ``Settlement''. It will not 
help anyone other than Microsoft. Allow us to return to the days 
where the best product at least has a change of success.
    Thank you,
    Bill Hawe
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00018790

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would like to make a few comments about the DOJ's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft.
    In the past I have worked for several companies that have been 
directly damaged by Microsoft's anti-competitve behavior: 
WordPerfect, Novell, and Corel. Early on in the computer industry 
you bought a computer and then you bought the software to put on it. 
Then came the age of OEM bundling. At first it seemed like a great 
idea but then big companies with commanding market share started 
leaning on OEMs to bundle more of their software and less of their 
competitors. WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and Netscape all 
died as a result of just this sort of tactic by Microsoft.
    Even the Intel division I used to work for was sent into a 
tailspin by Microsoft bundling pieces of SMS (previously a 
completely separate product) into Windows 2000. The LANDesk 
Management Suite group employs about half as many people as it used 
to because they are losing market share. SMS didn't get any better 
it just got a better distribution channel.
    Now with the release of Windows XP there is a new list of 
targets. RealNetworks is the one that comes most readily to mind. I 
can tell you that if I had any of their stock I would have already 
sold it. The audio and video streaming stuff that Microsoft has 
bundled in to XP is directly aimed at taking them out.
    So as I see it, Microsoft has done two sorts of anticompetitive 
things. One, use their Windows monopoly to force OEMs to bundle 
Word/Excel/etc. They killed WordPerfect and Lotus with that one. 
Two, bundle things like their worthless browser into Windows which 
gives them a tremendous distribution advantage. They killed Netscape 
with that one.
    So where in the proposed settlement is this sort of behavior 
prevented in the future? No place I can see. And where in the 
proposed settlement is redress for all the companies (I have only 
named a couple of the largest) that Microsoft has killed with their 
anticompetitive behavior? It isn't there. So what sort of a proposed 
settlement is this? A pretty lousy one. One that holds every bit as 
much weight as the 1995 consent decree which they were wiggling 
around and flouting before the ink was even dry.
    And what of the highly vaunted ``right to innovate''? 
Well, the government tried to reign Microsoft in and failed (for 
whatever reason) and now what little or even big company is going to 
go up against a company that wields its monopoly power with such 
might that not even the government can stop them? Only the very 
foolish. The only innovation we will see is what Microsoft decides 
to give us. And all the great ideas that could have been will never 
be.
    In short, the DOJ has failed us. The settlement should be thrown 
out and the judge should impose a remedy. Judge Jackson did some 
stupid things but he saw Microsoft for what they are and his rememdy 
would have gone a long way towards preventing further occurances. I 
would like to see prevention -and- redress addressed in 
any settlement or imposed remedy. Justice demands nothing less.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Fagerburg



MTC-00018791

From: Mark W. Snitily
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I have been gainfully employed in the computer software/hardware 
sector for 21 years. Prior to that I earned my Bachelor of Science 
in Computer Science at the the University of Washington, Seattle, 
Washington in 1978. I was accepted into the University of 
Washington's Computer Science Ph.D. program and continued graduate 
studies there for an additional three years.
    The University of Washington campus is directly across from 
Microsoft; Lake Washington with its Evergreen floating bridge 
separates the two. With Microsoft so close and being a student in 
the Computer Science department, needless to say, Microsoft was a 
topic of discussion even way back in those days.
    Unlike the current discussions of Microsoft in the news, back 
then the mention of Microsoft was usually in the context of a joke. 
Microsoft's DOS and Basic were so inferior to numerous other 
operating systems and languages, it truly was a joke. But, it has 
never ceased to amaze me how Microsoft could market and 
sell-and the tactics that they used... They undermined 
competition one after another, year after year. I have watched 
Microsoft from the early days. Regarding the Microsoft Settlement, I 
think Dan Gillmor's column in the San Jose Mercury News on Friday 
November 2, 2001 says it best. He titled that column ``A 
Fraudulent, Cynical Settlement.'' Quoting from that column: 
``This deal, assuming it takes hold, is not even a wrist slap. 
It's a love letter to the most arrogant and unrepentant monopolist 
since Standard Oil.'' Full column can be accessed at http://
web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/11/02/opinion/dgillmor/weblog/
index.htm
    I won't delve into the issues of this settlement, many others 
have done that and have spoken exquisitely-I would only be 
repeating them. Rather, I am voicing my opinion as an expert in this 
field. I have had my own consulting business in Silicon Valley since 
1984. I have personally worked with over a dozen different operating 
systems. (Stopped counting OS's after I got to 16, could probably 
think of a few more...) I have worked with a multitude of different 
computer languages. I have watch competition strive in various 
fields and watch competition be choked to death in others.
    I have watched businesses be born... and watched businesses 
die... I will unequivocally state that the terms of the Microsoft 
Settlement are not in the best interests of the public, not in the 
best interests of business competition, and without hesitancy should 
be rejected.
    Thank you.
    Mark W. Snitily

[[Page 26632]]

    4441 Lazy Lane
    San Jose, CA 95135-1805
    Member of ACM, IEEE.



MTC-00018792

From: THX 1138
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I am very upset by the actions taken by Microsoft with regard to 
the anti-trust laws of this country. Their inexcusable actions have 
cost businesses millions in lost time and security breaches due to 
problems they themselves have created and ignored. Meanwhile they 
have silenced those who seek to rectify these problems. This kind of 
business should not be able to survive, let alone prosper in a 
capitalistic society. The way they have survived is by breaking 
anti-trust laws, regulations, and prior commitments to uphold their 
own self-interest. The time to stop them is now. Punish this company 
properly, they have proven the will not abide by laws nor agreements 
in the past, what is to make us think that they will in the future?
    As a concerned citizen of this nation, I felt it my duty to let 
my voice be heard.
    Thank You,
    Ben Truesdale
    Columbia, SC



MTC-00018793

From: Geoff Klingsporn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement is a horrible idea. 
It represents nothing less than official government sanction for 
Microsoft's predatory business practices, not to mention their 
extension into one of the few markets that Microsoft does not 
already dominate. There must be a better way to achieve Justice.
    Regards,
    Geoffrey Klingsporn
    Denver, CO
    [email protected]



MTC-00018794

From: Joe Egan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm against the microsoft settlement. Having them use their OS 
as payment is like giving them the right to print money. I wish I 
couuld pay my penalties with CDs that I write myself.
    Joseph Egan
    472 Huntington Avenue
    Hyde Park, MA 02136



MTC-00018795

From: Scirocco Six
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appaled by the currently proposed settlement. It leaves the 
citizens of this country in a worse position regarding Microsoft 
than we were before the justice dept came on the scene.
    Scirocco M. Six
    San Jose, California



MTC-00018796

From: Jeff Doran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a brief note to register my conerns with the settlement 
phase of the anti-trust case against Microsoft. Since Microsoft has 
seen fit to use it's considerable desktop OS advantage in a 
monopolistic maner, it is only fitting that steps should be taken to 
provide more competition in this arena. Microsoft has given no 
indication of any contrition and has shown no signs of changing any 
of the practices in question. At the very least they should return 
their ill gotten gains.
    If Microsoft wants to truly let the customer decide, then make 
them open up all of their internal OS API's. Require them to use the 
same programming interfaces for their applications as their 
competitors. Have them provide a modular OS where the user can 
choose to replace the pieces that do not provide fair value. 
Competition means that there are credible choices.!
    Thank you for your time.
    -Jeff Doran



MTC-00018797

From: David M. Plummer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is improper and will only 
encourage Microsoft to further abuse its monopoly.
    David M. Plummer



MTC-00018798

From: James Sentman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am a computer developer and intimately familiar with 
Microsoft's products and procedures. I do not support the current 
proposed settlement as I believe it will provide no protection from 
future illegal actions by Microsoft and provides no justice for 
those illegally affected by them in the past.
    Even since this trial began Microsoft continues to make business 
decisions with the obvious goal of using their monopoly power to 
illegally force others out of the marketplace. The examples of this 
are numerous, and I will gladly supply a lengthy list if you wish. 
They continue to show their disrespect for the American legal system 
believing themselves to be beyond your reach.
    Please reconsider this ``deal'' and give us justice 
and a world where we can compete with Microsoft in a marketplace 
where everyone doesn't use Microsoft products simply because they 
were illegally dumped into their lap.
    Only a corporate culture of such powerful elitism and confidence 
in their own immunity to reality could be responsible for the 
patently ludicrous statements that they have recently issued against 
the Open Source community. The only people threatened by the Open 
Source movement are Microsoft. They fear they may have to compete 
with something for the first time in many years and they know that 
can't succeed without their monopoly powers. Take away Microsoft's 
ability to leverage their monopoly and the market will make the 
right decisions.
    Thank you,
    James Sentman, president sentman.com
    Richmond, VA
    
    http://www.sentman.com
    Enterprise server monitoring with:
    http://whistleblower.sentman.com/



MTC-00018799

From: Todd Blackley
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I have been a programmer for the past 20 years and I remember 
the field when it was full of choices and options. Today, with 
Microsoft the development choices are limited to Microsoft or risk 
your job. Please do not let Microsoft off the hook. They have no 
business in ``owning'' both the OS, Office and development 
tools that everyone must use. For the Software Development field 
(and the resulting Office, OS and Shrinkwrap) continue to develop, 
the field must remain open to multiple choices and options. Please 
break up MicroSoft!
    Thank you for your time.
    Todd Blackley
    [email protected]
    435.649.5300 x115



MTC-00018800

From: jmiranda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea and I am against it.
    Jose Miranda, MD



MTC-00018801

From: Dave Booth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an individual IT professional I am writing this to include my 
personal comments in the responses to the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. These comments are mine and do not necessarily 
represent the opinion of my employer.
    Since before the Windows operating system was available I have 
been a user of Microsoft products. In some areas they excelled, in 
others they were easily surpassed by others. Over my career in IT I 
have personally observed ever-higher barriers raised to 
interoperability between Microsoft products and those of other 
software producers. This resulted in the creation of the current 
monopoly situation enjoyed by Microsoft and has, in my opinion, been 
primarily responsible for its continuation by allowing Microsoft to 
stifle competition through simply changing their APIs and protocols 
faster than they could be reverse-engineered to compete. I am very 
disappointed to note that the proposed settlement leaves far too 
many loopholes to

[[Page 26633]]

inspire any confidence that this will not continue.
    In particular the provisions of section III.J.1 are too broad. 
Anti-piracy or software licensing concerns are a valid exception in 
the context of this section but security, encryption or 
authentication methods that rely on obfuscating their mechanism for 
their effectiveness are fundamentally flawed, to the extent that it 
could be viewed as fraudulent to classify them as 
``secure''. This being the case, disclosure of the 
mechanism by which these APIs or Communications Protocols operate 
should not place Microsoft at any disadvantage-The competitor 
they seem to most fear, namely open-source software, discloses all 
these mechanisms and yet still has a better security record than all 
of Microsofts products. On the other hand, allowing Microsoft to 
eclude these APIs and Protocols from disclosure allows them to 
prevent interoperability between their software and others by a very 
simple stratagem. It does a third-party program very little good to 
be able to work with files in a Microsoft-derived format if it is 
impossible to authenticate to the server on which they reside 
without using the Windows OS.
    In addition, one provision which assumes a greater significance 
in the light of this loophole is absent from the proposed 
settlement. This is the demonstrated strategy of ``Embrace and 
Extend,'' used by Microsoft to gain control over hitherto open 
standards. In this strategy Microsoft publicly adopts an agreed 
standard that is already in use within the IT community and begins 
to market products that conform to that standard. Future releases of 
these products ``extend'' the standard with Microsoft-
proprietary additions which gain market share due to Microsofts 
ubiquity rather than through the accepted and proper process of 
review. The eventual result is that Microsoft has dictated a change 
in the standard and in the process ensured that other products that 
comply with that standard are no longer percieved as fully 
functional. It is imperative that some prohibition on this behaviour 
is included in the final settlement.
    On this basis I strongly urge the rejection of this proposed 
settlement.
    Yours sincerely,
    J D Booth
    944 Larpenteur Ave
    St Paul, MN 55113 (home)
    Systems Administrator
    Carlson Wagonlit Travel
    PO Box 59159
    Minneapolis, MN 55459-8231 (work)



MTC-00018802

From: Paul Felts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user and proponent of an alternative operating system 
(Linux), I feel that the proposed final settlement in the Microsoft 
case offers no real remedy. The judgment allows many exclusionary 
practices to continue, and does not take any direct measures to 
reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to 
the market. I feel that the settlement need to be revised.
    Paul Felts
    CSF / Elderhostel Tech Support
    Ph: 805-648-6342
    Fax: 805-648-7504
    web: www.eldervision.org



MTC-00018803

From: Pierre Scotney
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Please improve.
    Regards
    Pierre Scotney



MTC-00018804

From: James Affeld
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the proposed settlement for several reasons:
    1) It does not change any of the anticompetitive behaviors 
because the focus is too narrow. Forcing ms to allow other 
implementations of java is irrelevant to MS strategy. It 
specifically excludes non-commercial software (``Open 
Source'') from consideration for open API's. This is crucial, 
because open source projects are the most significant competition MS 
has.
    2) It doesn't really punish MS for its actions. Remember: MS has 
been found guilty.
    In addition, I strongly urge you to carefully assess the 
legitimacy of pro-microsoft comments. Microsoft is an inveterate 
astroturfer. Their pr machine is addicted to faking grassroots 
support.
    From: James Affeld 



MTC-00018805

From: Gang Zhou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Gang



MTC-00018806

From: David L. Sanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am opposed to the current settlement terms. I think the 
settlement fails to punish Microsoft for its illegal activities. I 
feel that if the past illegal activities are not punished, then 
Microsoft is given the message that such conduct is acceptable to 
the legal system. Consequently, I think that the current settlement 
provides no requirement that Microsoft change its underlying 
business practices in the future and would expect that Microsoft 
will continue those business practices, despite the judgment against 
it.
    David L. Sanford
    Seattle, WA
    currently, an unemployed programmer
    David L. [email protected]



MTC-00018807

From: Pierre Scotney
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Pierre Scotney



MTC-00018808

From: David Barzelay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    proposed settlement is horrible.



MTC-00018809

From: Tom Howland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement does not go nearly far enough. Microsoft should 
not be given the educational market as punishment. Instead, let them 
buy hardware and get Red Hat to supply the OS.
    Sincerely
    Tom Howland
    408 330 5782



MTC-00018810

From: Brandon Bidewell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am extremely disappointed in the proposed final judgment (PFJ) 
that the Department of Justice has signed with Microsoft. The fact 
that many plaintiffs in this case are not party to the PFJ is a 
clear sign that the PFJ is unacceptable. It's been more than 5 years 
since the DoJ first took Microsoft to task; is the Department of 
Justice going to cave in now? If the PFJ is the most that Microsoft 
would concede then this issue should have been left to the judge to 
settle.

[[Page 26634]]

    Microsoft's monopoly is travesty of free markets, and the PFJ is 
a travesty of justice. Any settlement with Microsoft that imposes 
conduct restrictions is doomed to fail. As Microsoft has done in the 
past, it will freely violate the law and taint the competitive 
landscape to its sole benefit. Assuming that laws could somehow be 
meaningfully enforced upon Microsoft, the PFJ contains many vague 
and incomplete terms and statements that will cause Microsoft to 
redefine its actions and restructure itself to avoid complying with 
the PFJ. In simplest of terms, if Microsoft was interested in 
following the law it would have done so.
    The PFJ makes a half-hearted attempt to get Microsoft to 
voluntarily comply with the law and creates a limited structure 
meant to regulate Microsoft through further court action (IV.(A)(4) 
``The Plaintiffs shall have the authority to seek such orders 
as are necessary from the Court to enforce this Final 
Judgment''). Given the current status of the case, the courts 
should be acting now to enforce the law. One would hope that future 
mis-behavior by Microsoft could be effectively thwarted by something 
besides the threat of future court action. Past actions have proven 
Microsoft to be a determined monopolist that is unable to self-
regulate and unwilling to be regulated. This type of vague agreement 
would have been reasonable 5 or 10 years ago. Microsoft cannot be 
expected to act reasonably and within the law.
    The only option that remains is to remove the monopoly from 
Microsoft, thus preventing all possible unlawful actions by 
Microsoft. Either Microsoft is split up and effectively competes 
with itself or Microsoft forfeits control of its monopoly to remain 
a single organization. Given the uncertainties that would be 
involved in breaking up Microsoft and Microsoft's certain resistance 
to this, the forfeiture to the public domain of Microsoft's software 
code and patents is necessary and reasonable. This is a sure and 
equitable solution given that Microsoft would retains all of its 
employees and its cash from which it can then freely innovate and 
create new products.
    Now is the time to free the software market from the dominance 
of Microsoft. Anything less will continue to strengthen Microsoft to 
the disadvantage of all but Microsoft employees/shareholders.
    I recommend that you review the following document before 
forming an opinion as the need to dismantle the monopoly Microsoft 
has created: http://usvms.gpo.gov/findings_index.html
    Sincerely,
    Brandon Bidewell
    P.O. Box 2610
    Alpine, CA 91903-2610
    [email protected]



MTC-00018811

From: Larry Glackin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I agree with Matthew:
    ``While we applaud Microsoft for raising the idea of 
helping poorer schools as part of the penalty phase of their 
conviction for monopolistic practices, we do not think that the 
remedy should be a mechanism by which Microsoft can further extend 
its monopoly,'' said Matthew Szulik, CEO of Red Hat. 
``Through this proposal all of the states and all of the 
schools can win, and Microsoft will achieve even greater success for 
its stated goal of helping schools. By providing schools with a 
software choice, Red Hat will enable Microsoft to provide many more 
computers to these schools. At the same time, the schools can accept 
this offer secure in the knowledge that they have not rewarded a 
monopolist by extending the monopoly.
    My own thoughts....
    Microsoft could reduce its prices across the board, they could 
still operate at a profit. The penalty should be something that 
makes a difference to Microsoft, the amount should be more like 30 
billion dollars-that is Microsoft's reserve. It could be a 
combined thing, new hardware for schools using the Red Hat software 
proposal and the rest in reduced prices until the 30 billion has 
been spent...
    Thank You
    Larry E. Glackin
    President ICE Communications, Inc.
    P.O.Box 1149
    Haines, Alaska 99827
    907 766 2092 -voice
    907 766 2325 -fax
    Http://www.WytBear.com
    Wireless Internet in Southeast Alaska



MTC-00018812

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my informed opinion that III.J.2.(b,c) allows Microsoft to 
restrict access to it's various API's unfairly. Namely, ``has a 
reasonable business need ...'' and ``meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business...'' It is simply 
not the case that all software development is driven by business, or 
hopes of profit as it were. There is a very thriving community of 
developers who develop ``Open Source'' or ``Free 
Software'' (see definitions for Open Source 
and  Free Software) 
applications.
    Allowing restriction of system interoperability is clearly anti- 
competetive; allowing discriminitory licensing to Microsoft's 
various API's based on the organization that a developer is 
affiliated with will do just that. Microsoft will use this clause to 
its advantage in continuing its unfairly gotten monopoly by 
disallowing access to it's API's to any entity that isn't a 
``viable'' business, i.e. Free Software & Open Source 
developers.
    Blake Wesley Thomas
    Student, University of Chicago
    Senior Tutor, Computer Science Laboratory



MTC-00018813

From: Shailar Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please enforce a much stronger remedy than what is currently 
being proposed. The current remedy will have no effect at best, and 
might even be harmful due to selective interpretations of the rules. 
Microsoft has damaged the industry greatly by consistently 
squelching innovation, producing inferior products and illegally 
destroying competition.
    The breakup was indeed the best proposed remedy by far. It would 
be best for consumers, the industry and even Microsoft itself 
(although it is easy to see why senior management would be loathe to 
give up their little fiefdoms).
    shailar.brown
    The DPC Group
    CTO
    www.dpcgroup.com



MTC-00018814

From: Logan Roots
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:49pm
Subject: AGAINST the proposed Microsoft settlement
    Hello,
    I am against the currently proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Logan Roost



MTC-00018815

From: Mike Graham
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I beleive that the results of the current settlement should be 
more closely examined. I don't beleive the current settlement will 
have much of an effect on Microsoft or the software market at all. 
Please reconsider. There are other settlement choices that may 
actually do something (ie Thomas F Reilly of Massachusetts 
proposal).
    Mike Graham



MTC-00018816

From: Jack Mathews
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I felt that I would not feel right complaining about the outcome 
of this trial unless I were to at the very least make my thoughts 
known.
    And my thoughts are that Microsoft has used it powers both 
legally and illegally to make inroads into markets it has no 
business in. It used Windows to crush Netscape, it has been using 
its unique positions to wage a war on RealPlayer, it is now using 
its position with Windows XP to make a global authentication system 
which they get money for.
    They are not held liable for the billions of dollars of damage 
caused by them crushing other businesses instead of focusing inward 
to fix security problems. The kinds of damage caused recently are 
the direct result of Microsoft spreading itself too thin, and even 
now its best solution is to issue a memo and trying to squelch 
security professionals.
    Now Microsoft has entered my industry-the video game 
industry-through their

[[Page 26635]]

inroads in controlling Windows. They control the graphics in 
Windows, they make a Windows machine, and they have the money FROM 
that to operate at a huge loss to generate revenue. They give away 
Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player for free, full featured, 
because they can leverage it from the operating system sales and 
make strategic partnerships with contents providers. Both inroads 
made to prevent competition they MAY have.
    They are a juggernaut that must be stopped. Split up, heavily 
taxed, or held accountable for the billions of dollars of loss.
    They are able to raise and lower prices at will, and are 
adopting a subscription based service for upgrades that consumers DO 
NOT WANT. They give out their development tools for free, but will 
crush anyone using their tools to compete with mere numbers of 
programmers and the ability to put things on the desktop. They are a 
juggernaut who show no signs of letting up or letting others 
compete.
    Thanks for your time.
    Jack Mathews



MTC-00018817

From: jon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    this proposed settlement is bad idea, it only help microsoft by 
``forcing'' them to ``donate'' computers to 
schools! they will make a nice profit off all the lisences they 
``donate'', yet charge for, in all those schools. i think 
this settlement should be seriously reconsidered.
    Jon Jordan
    Computer Science 2 student
    Mayde Creek High School
    Katy, Texas



MTC-00018818

From: Matthias R(00F6)nsberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:51pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Hi there!
    Chipping in my $.02 from Germany I just like to ask for some 
intellictual, human ``THINKING''. Microsoft has brought 
itself into the position it faces now, because of not following the 
law. Please remember that the findings in that big case brought to 
daylight that Microsoft engaged in lying, fraud, suppression and 
manipulating so-called objective studies and even paying analysts. 
Have them bleed. If I remember correctly, they have some $15bln in 
cash. Everything less than $10bln cash penalty is peanuts to them, 
keeping in mind that that other trial, with Judge Thomas Penfield 
Jackson unfortunately being removed from the case, will now, under 
the Bush-administration, probably lead to NOTHING!
    Thanx,
    Matt Roensberg
    Lohkoppelstr. 23
    22083 Hamburg
    Germany
    Tel.: +49-40-20004970
    mail: [email protected]



MTC-00018819

From: doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I agree 
with the statements in this essay:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Thank you.



MTC-00018820

From: Thomas Bohmbach
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my concern that the current Microsoft 
settlement proposal is little more than a slap on the wrist and will 
not accomplish its goals of rectifying the monopoly abuses that MS 
has been found guilty of. Specifically, the Proposed Final Judgment 
allows many exclusionary practices to continue, and does not take 
any direct measures to reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry 
faced by new entrants to the market.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Bohmbach, Jr.
    Senior Software Engineer
    MLT Vacations, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00018821

From: Tai
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I believe that this settlement is one of the worst things that 
you can do to American consumers and the economy. You are allowing a 
convicted monopolist to continue to do what it has always done, 
crushing any and all competition, only now, it has the weight of the 
law. Passing this law would mean AT&T should not have been 
broken up years ago.
    Please go with the 9 states that are not onboard this gravy 
train for Microsoft. Please do not go forward with this crazy idea 
of legalizing the crushing of a monopolist's competitors.
    Thank you very much.
    Tai
    Disclaimer: My opinion is my opinion alone. My company pays for 
my expertise, but not my opinion.



MTC-00018822

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sure you've received many mails about the inadequacies of 
the proposed settlement. It does not pro-actively and positively 
ensure that ANY application from ANY size Company is protected from 
the monopolistic and anti-competitive practices of Microsoft.
    Furthermore, it does not guarantee alternate OS provider's the 
ability to make Microsoft applications compatible with alternative 
Operating Systems. The special master(s) onsite in Redmond MUST have 
enforcement authority to make Microsoft play fairly against any 
other competitor. These four guarantees (1: any size competitor is 
relevant 2: MS OS plus 3rd party applicatios 3: Competitor OS 
compatability w/Microsoft applications 4: ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY for 
the Special Master.) are necessary! The settlement, as proposed, 
will not satisfy the law because it will not stop the monopoly 
practices! All else would be fair game, in my book.
    Don't let them kill the culture of innovation and Garage 
capitalism!
    Brenda White (No Affiliations. Just a consumer.)
    El Segundo California



MTC-00018823

From: John Angelico
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Anti-Trust Settlement
    Whilst I am outside the US jurisdiction of the Microsoft and 
Dept of Justice anti-trust proceedings, I am opposed to the 
settlement proposed, since I believe it is ineffective in dealing 
with the breaches of anti-trust provisions and the abuses of 
monopoly power already proved in the case. As a long-time user of 
computers in a wide variety of businesses, the abuse of monopoly 
power demonstrated in this case represents a diminution of my 
freedom of choice in computing and therefore an unwarranted 
restriction upon the operation of my business.
    Yours sincerely,
    John Angelico
    Owner/Director
    Kingsley Educational Pty Ltd
    PO Box 310
    Mt Waverley 3149
    VIC Australia



MTC-00018824

From: Stewart J. Stremler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Of the innumerable complaints possible with the Microsoft 
settlement, only a couple will be made here, with the understanding 
that this is not the sole complaint this writer has with the 
proposed settlement. In part III, section J (``No provision of 
this Final Judgment shall:''), both points seem to be an 
obvious evisceration of the suitability of the proposal. It 
effectively asserts that Microsoft's policy of not disclosing 
essential information to potential competitors if it doesn't want 
to.
    The one caveat, where they apparently CAN (by my interpretation) 
be forced to reveal details of their APIs ``if lawfully 
directed not[1] to do so by a governmental agency of competent 
jurisdiction'' would apparently give them sufficient ammunition 
to protest long enough to /change/ the API or details to be 
revealed.
    Further, in 2(b), it says ``meets reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft''-certainly, any such 
standards will, by the fact that they are being established by 
Microsoft, NOT be ``objective'', but necessarily 
``subjective''. It is not in the best interests of 
Microsoft to be objective.
    [1] This is the second negation of a double-negative, the first 
being the heading of

[[Page 26636]]

section J, that begins ``No provision''. However, this is 
a long ways, textually, between the negatives, which does not aid 
clarity.
    Stewart Stremler
    Office: 619-553-3129
    [email protected]
    Employer: G2 Software Systems
    [email protected]



MTC-00018825

From: Leon (Lee) Langan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not an attorney nor do I use Intel-based computers. I am an 
experienced computer user who favors Apple-based machines. I am 
forced, as well, to use computers based on Microsoft operation 
systems.
    I believe the settlement proposed is an unfair resolution to the 
findings that show the damage that Microsoft has done over the years 
in establishing themselves using monopolistic business practices. As 
a result of their tactics ``standards'' (common 
procedures) have been developed that limit users, in a practical 
sense, in the choice of computer solutions available. Frequently 
these procedures have be derivations of concepts developed elsewhere 
(yes, often at Apple, but at Netscape, Sun and in numerous small 
ventures).
    I believe that, because of the findings of fact, Microsoft 
should be required to place their operating system in the public 
domain and then be allowed to compete in making improvements and 
applications and services if they so choose. The price of 
monopolistic behavior should be the loss of proprietary ownership.
    Lee Langan
    LANGAN PRODUCTS, INC.



MTC-00018826

From: gkern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:48pm
Subject: unfair for microsoft
    if i were a judge, this case would have been thrown out before 
it ever became so ridiculous. it only goes to show what our gov. is 
really made of.its a shame that the gov. doesn't really represent 
the people. any fool can see that its all about money. microsoft has 
it and every so called company including thier gov. wants part of 
it. it doesn't pay to futher yourself in this country unless your a 
politician or a judge. needless to say i think microsoft is a great 
co. and good for america.
    thank you



MTC-00018827

From: Brandon Dorman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I think the current proposed Microsoft settlement is not good. 
We must change it to keep the American dream alive.
    Sincerely
    Brandon Dorman
    [email protected]



MTC-00018828

From: Marc A. Tamsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    May it please the court:
    The following section, offset by the text ``COMMENTS 
FOLLOW'', is to be entered in the record under the public 
comment period required by the Tunney Act(15 USC 16), in the case 
(United States vs. Microsoft).
    The proposed settlement ``Stipulation and Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment (11/06/2001)'' has several shortcomings not 
addressed by the court's judgement, but which still stand as 
important issues.
    My comments here address, in my view, the most important 
shortcoming. As cataloged by the Court of Appeals in this case, one 
of the important anticompetitive, exclusionary acts that Microsoft 
has used to bolster application barriers to entry is the withholding 
of critical technical information regarding the format and design of 
application file formats (eg. Word, Excel, Access documents.) In the 
Remedial Proposals by the several States [Civil Action No. 
98-1233 (CKK) (State of New York, et.al., v. Microsoft)] 14.b. 
contains the following text: ... all technical information required 
to port Office to other Operating Systems (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED 
TO FILE FORMATS)... [emphasis added]
    For the courts to have declared certain actions on the part of 
Microsoft anticompetitive, and then not address that type of 
behavior in the final disposition is unforgivable, and such judgment 
is not in the public interest.
    The Court of Appeals in this case held:
    ``a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek to 
`unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,'' to 
`terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the 
fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no 
practices likely to result in monopolization in the 
future.'''
    Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. United 
States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972) and United States v. United Shoe 
Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)) (citation omitted).
    Given the findings by the Court of Appeals and the above quoted 
stipulation, allowing Microsoft to continue it's practice of non-
disclosure of file formats must be seen as ``likely to to 
result in monopolization in the future.''
    Without demand of remedy by court to have full public disclosure 
of file formats intended for interchange of information between 
individuals would leave the public in the same place as it was 
before this case-with Microsoft holding the monopoly in 
applications, by way of the lack of independent software vendors 
being able to read and write Microsoft-proprietary application file 
formats. I thank the court for its attention to this important 
matter.
    Marc Tamsky
    Citizen of California,
    United States of America.



MTC-00018829

From: Christopher Adam Telfer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to submit my comment regarding the proposet 
settlement with Microsoft. I find that there are many problems with 
this settlement. One in particular causes most of the stipulations 
placed in this settlement to be completely ineffective at preventing 
any of the abuses that the settlement seeks to curb.
    Section VI: U.``Windows Operating System Product'' 
means the software code (as opposed to source code) distributed 
commercially by Microsoft for use with Personal Computers as Windows 
2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and 
successors to the foregoing, including the Personal Computer 
versions of the products currently code named ``Longhorn'' 
and ``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including 
upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion.
    Allowing Microsoft to have full authority over what is and isn't 
part of the Operating System allows them to control when many of the 
stipulations of the settlement come into play and when they don't. A 
significant portion of the antitrust trial centered around whether 
Internet Explorer could be removed from the Windows. Microsoft 
contended that it could not because it was ``part of the 
operating system''. The courts found otherwise. This is a 
historical example of where, if Microsoft had full authority to name 
what was part of the operating system and what wasn't, it would have 
abused the legal process and avoided just judgement for its 
offenses.
    This clause should be removed. At the very least, a third-party 
panel of authorities in the computing field should be used to make 
such a determination if it ever comes into question.
    Christopher Telfer
    Graduate Student
    Purdue University
    West Lafayette, IN



MTC-00018830

From: H.B. Telling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Harry Bart Telling, I live in Alaska. I do not feel 
that sufficient restrictions are going to be placed on Microsoft. 
There is more than enough evidence to see that Microsoft is a 
monopoly with a deathgrip on the internet and the personal computer 
market. I believe that harsher restrictions need to be placed on 
Microsoft, in order to foster a free and competitive operating 
system and internet market.
    Thank you,
    Harry Bart Telling
    [email protected]



MTC-00018831-0001

From: Daniel Sauerwein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:56pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26637]]

    The proposed judgement regarding Microsoft's obvious abuse of 
competition is fatally flawed. As a concerned consumer I wish to 
voice my opposition to this settlement, which leaves Microsoft's 
tyrannical stranglehold on the industry practically untouched.
    Daniel Sauerwein



MTC-00018831-0002



MTC-00018832

From: Stanley S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed some of the actions to be taken against 
Microsoft and they are just giving them more reason to be anti 
competitive. By giving schools computers and software they increase 
their educational presence and also take a tax write off. They have 
a history of offering low prices for competitors ideas and if they 
don't get it they offer it from free forcing the other company out 
of business. Please consider breaking up and fineing them to the 
maximum. Allow more free competition and other computer languages to 
flourish.
    Thanks
    Stanley Silverman
    Plantation Fl.



MTC-00018833

From: Fritz Knack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As an Information Technology professional with almost twenty 
years of experience with various hardware, operating systems, and 
the people who use them, I must protest the terms Microsoft has 
proposed for the settlement of the anti-trust suit brought by the US 
DOJ. By putting more Microsoft software into classrooms, the bottom 
line result would be a still tighter grip on its already 
monopolistic market. Further, the dollar values Microsoft has 
assigned to calculate the software's ``worth'' are grossly 
inflated because of the price controls their monopoly already 
imparts. Microsoft's proposal is simply a farce.
    Sincerely,
    Fredrick H. ``Fritz'' Knack, Jr.
    Charlotte, NC 28213



MTC-00018834

From: Jason Byrns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As it stands now, I am strongly opposed to the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Far from 
punishing Microsoft for abusing their monopoly, this settlement 
would in fact reward Microsoft in many ways. I fear we have already 
lost a great deal of potential progress to Microsoft's abusive 
business tactics and underhanded methods. I strongly encourage a 
much stricter remedy. Especially recognizing Microsoft's inability 
in the past to conform to legal decrees and sanctions, we must do 
much more to ensure that ``the playing field'' is leveled.
    Thank you.
    Jason Byrns
     ispi of Lincoln, Inc. http://
www.ispi.net
    402.441.3295



MTC-00018835

From: Rich Alme
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please dispose of this case. I don't believe, and have never 
bought the argument, that consumers were being harmed by this. To 
the contrary, tens of thousands if not millions of consumers were 
hurt indirectly by the lawsuit brought by the federal government and 
it is an outrage.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Alme
    Minneapolis, MN
    [email protected]



MTC-00018836

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:54pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has monopolized the computer life of American 
citizens. Why Gateway, Dell, IBM, Compaq and most computer companies 
are lured into Microsoft's net, YES, the internet, boggles the mind. 
Virtually, no computers are available, without Microsoft's system. 
The public is held hostage by this company. If a consumer wants to 
read a ``JAVA'' page, they're forced to download a Java 
enabler. Microsoft is forcing anyone who wants to visit a Java page, 
to take the time to download a program, which could have been 
included if Microsoft didn't want to monopolize the browser world. 
Microsoft made it as difficult as possible to use Netscape too.
    Awaiting a decision in Washington as to their punishment, 
Microsoft has the audacity to make AOL as inconvienent as possible 
with Microsoft XP, in a sickening attempt to force AOL subscribers 
to switch to MicrosoftNet. No matter the size of a monitor's screen, 
XP will only allow an AOL screen to a maximum 6x4'' screen. 
Microsoft has dealt low blows to Sunmicrosystems, Linux, Netscape, 
and now is assaulting AOL.
    WHY ARE ALL NEW COMPUTERS LOADED WITH XP?
    How does Microsoft manage to force their product on all computer 
companies?
    Why does the consumer have no choice but to accept Microsoft 
products?
    Why isn't Microsoft punished as severely as the punishment 
they've ``enforced'' on all competition?
    Sharon Parchinski
    [email protected]



MTC-00018837

From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a travesty of justice.
    Bill Hertzog
    [email protected]



MTC-00018838

From: jonrc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea.
    Jonathan Cameron



MTC-00018839

From: Herrick Goldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea! Microsoft deserves stronger 
punishment!
    Herrick Goldman
    Lighting Designer, NYC
    800-921-3797
    www.HGLightingDesign.com



MTC-00018840

From: Gerd Flaig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I sincerely believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement will 
not restore competition in the software market. There are numerous 
reasons why this is the case, some of which are listed at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
    Please reconsider the proposal.
    Gerd Flaig.



MTC-00018841

From: SuperBoomer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please register my OPPOSITION to the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. It bears all the pentalty of a slap on the wrist, and 
all the teeth of the 1995 consent decree, which has fallen well 
short of its intended consequence. The proposed settlement is, in my 
opinion, inadequate protection for consumers and competing 
businesses against Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position over 
the PC operating system market. It is inadequate protection for 
consumers and competing businesses as Microsoft continues to 
leverage its existing monopoly into other markets; office software, 
web browsers, the Internet itself and its protocols, consumer and 
gaming electronics, to name but several where I believe Microsoft's 
dominance has allowed it to exercise undue and unfair advantage.
    Microsoft has repeatedly shown that its left hand will continue 
to do what it pleases, while its right shakes hands in agreement and 
compliance.
    Throughout the trial, Microsoft proved that it is willing to 
mislead and obfuscate to maintain its position, as if it were 
playing a game with no rules and high stakes. I do not believe that 
any settlement which is fundamentally based on the concept that 
Microsoft is willing to play nice can or will be successful.
    I encourage the United States Department of Justice to dismiss 
the proposed settlement, and encourage the Plaintiffs to seek a 
serious and enforceable remedy. Thank you.

[[Page 26638]]

    Sincerely Yours,
    Douglas Rau
    [email protected]



MTC-00018842

From: Daniel Bremmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a tech-savvy voter with an elementary understanding of logic 
I am opposed to the settlement offer proposed by the USDOJ. Allowing 
Microsoft multiple loopholes for which they can keep middleware 
applications in their operating systems is not strict enough for a 
convicted monopolist who has been found to be involved in many 
unfair and illegal business practices. Microsoft uses their 
operating system to unfairly gain market access in unrelated or 
partially related products and services. To exploit one's market 
position to increase sales is smart business, to exploit one's 
market position to deny other companies access is illegal and 
morally repugnant.
    This settlement offer is not consistent with the findings of the 
court or the facts at hand. It is a transparently political scheme 
and should be investigated as such.
    I hope you loose a lot of sleep over this matter,
    -Daniel
    [email protected]
    www.peachfuzz.net



MTC-00018843

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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 
suprise. 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 monopoly in such a new industry. An 
industry which is still forming. 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. Infact, this letter is being written in Opera, which 
easily matches if not surpasses IE in all respects.
    Second, Who has really been hurt? The public?....sure, but more 
than that, the 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.
    Next, the OEM agreements need some retoolong. 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, the Wine and Lindows projects. Both are moving 
to create an alternative OS for running Windows applications. 
Support of this effort would truly give users a choice. There would 
effectively be an alternative to Windows, without sacrificing 
windows applications. All we want is a level playing field. As much 
as Microsoft threatens the stiffling of innovation, you must stand 
firm. Ask yourselves what measures can we put in place that would 
put Microsoft back under the control of the market rather than vise 
versa. I hope this helps.
    Thanks for your time,
    Chris Gregan
    Portland, OR



MTC-00018844

From: Justin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This ``settlement'' will not prevent Microsoft from 
exercising it's monopoly power, nor does it promote a competitive 
environment. This settlement also allows Microsoft to remain forcing 
OEMS to ship it's proprietary, non-removable (therefore forced on 
the consumer), middleware applications. This settlement does not do 
enough to limit Microsoft's power.



MTC-00018845

From: Leo Muraro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the DOJ proposed settlement with Microsoft is 
shameful.
    I'm a computer consultant and I'm constantly struggling to 
provide clients the best solutions for their data processing needs. 
Beecause some of them have used Microsoft applications & 
operating systems, getting my customers data out of Microsoft's 
encrypted and proprietary formats is often so difficult (and 
expensive) that they are trapped with Microsoft. Microsoft could not 
get away with this in a healthy software market. The Software market 
is not healthy because Microsoft has engaged in predatory and 
illegal business practices for so long, that is now too dangerous to 
try to compete with Microsoft. It's not about the quality of your 
software, but how big your legal department is.
    The proposed DOJ settlement is flawed for the following reasons: 
It would not prevent Microsoft from engaging in the same illegal 
behavior that it was found guilty of.
    I think the proposals of the nine States that are disagreeing 
with the DOJ settlement have a more suitable remedy:
    Microsoft must sell operating systems without any applications.
    Microsoft must be prevented from prohibiting (via punative 
pricing contracts) computer manufacturers and computer users from 
offering or using alternative and co-existing operating systems and 
appilcations available to their customers.
    Microsoft must be forced to license the Office suite of 
applications to competing operating systems in order to compensate 
for past illegal conduct.
    Microsoft must be forced to publish the encoding format of its 
applications. Microsoft encrypts data in documents so that competing 
applications cannot read them.
    Microsoft must be fined for overcharging consumers and 
business's. The cost of all software has dropped except MS operating 
systems.
    Microsoft must not be allowed any role in determining the 
criteria of compliance with any settlement, this is shamefull and 
must not be allowed. A panel of computer scientists should settle 
technical questions and issues.
    I also think that Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James 
should resign in shame from the DOJ and just get a job with 
Microsoft, it would be much more honest. It's quite clear that he is 
not interested in looking out for the public interest.
    Leo Muraro
    1631 S St. NW #802
    Washington, DC 20009



MTC-00018846

From: Paul Frankenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:52pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment briefly on the Proposed Final Judgment 
in the US. v. Microsoft case.
    There are a number of significant flaws in the PFJ as it 
currently stands, but I wish to focus on a few key issues:
    1) The conduct of Microsoft during the trial: Microsoft and its 
attorneys repeatedly falsified evidence that was presented in court. 
The most egregious example was a faked videotape that Microsoft 
claimed showed how Windows 98 was impaired by the removal of 
Internet Explorer. In fact, Windows 98 is not impaired by such 
removal; yet rather than admit that to the court, Microsoft chose to 
not only lie, but to present evidence that they knew had been faked. 
Subsequently, they produced another videotape that purported to show 
that Windows 98 was faster than Windows 3.1 at accessing the 
internet; however, the machine running Windows 98 had been equipped 
with a faster modem. Microsoft employees and executives were 
repeatedly evasive and delibrately misleading while giving

[[Page 26639]]

testimony, often contradicting their own email evidence. This 
culminated in the videotaped deposition given by Bill Gates, where 
he was evasive to the point of asking for definitions of the words 
``concern,'' ``complete,'' and ``we.''
    2) The PFJ completely fails to prohibit the kind of 
anticompetitive behavior (specifically the elimination of Netscape 
as a competitor to Microsoft, and more broadly the elimination of 
the browser as an operating system-independent platform) that formed 
the original basis for U.S. v. Microsoft.
    3) The whole investigation came about when it was discovered 
that Microsoft was not complying with the terms of the 1994 consent 
degree.
    4) The PFJ has no effective enforcement mechanism whatsoever.
    5) Given the history of the case and the absence of an effective 
enforcement mechanism, there is ample evidence to suggest that 
Microsoft will, once the PFJ is signed, ignore the terms of the PJF 
and continue with their unlawful anticompetitive behaviors and 
practices.
    Unfortunately, Microsoft continues in attempting to ignore the 
will of the courts; their recent attempt to settle a number of 
class-action lawsuits invovled donating $1 billion of software and 
hardware to schools across the nation. Unfortunately, such a 
settlement had nothing to do with the merits of the case and simply 
would have extended Microsoft's reach into a market where they have 
not been traditionally successful. Judge Motz correctly ruled that 
the proposed settlement in that case was actually beneficial to 
Microsoft and not beneficial to the plaintiffs.
    I believe that the PFJ, as currently written, fails to provide 
an appropriate remedy for Microsoft's actions, as laid out in Judge 
Jackson's Findings of Fact, and, in fact, has the potential to 
actually be beneficial to Microsoft. Moreover, it utterly fails to 
address the question of the public good-unless one believes 
that monopolies, anti-competitive behavior, and predatory pricing 
practices are in the public good.
    Sincerely,
    paul frankenstein



MTC-00018847

From: Brian Hamilton Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am given to understand that, under the Tunney Act, the DoJ 
will take note of commentary upon this settlement from third 
parties. Although not a citizen of the US, I would like to record 
that this apparent whitewash totally negates the excellent work that 
has been put into exposing the monopolistic practices of Microsoft, 
and am astounded that it has been permitted. Unless the decision is 
reversed, and a REAL penalty imposed upon Microsoft, their 
monopolistic position will become even more firmly established. This 
is THE LAST CHANCE to stop this.
    I am an ardent user of IBM's OS/2 operating system; a piece of 
software that was consistently undermined and ruined through 
Microsoft's unethical practices (not the least of which was their 
overcharging software developers for compilers and other software 
tools unless they undertook to develop purely for Windows, even 
though virtually the same source code could have been compiled to 
run properly under OS/2). OS/2 was (and still is) infinitely 
superior to Windows of any flavour; yet IBM have virtually allowed 
it to die, because they have recognized they even they cannot afford 
to compete. I am pleased that Serenity Systems International have 
negotiated a licensing scheme by which they are selling updated (and 
very usable) versions of OS/2 under their eComStation branding, but 
this does depend upon IBM continuing to develop and improve OS/2 
-something which they might well decide to forget altogether 
if Microsoft are allowed to get away with their illegal activities.
    Brian Hamilton Kelly
    [email protected]



MTC-00018848

From: WALTER HUNNEL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This will be a short letter, as I'm sure you have many to go 
through. Let me say up front that as a computer user, Database 
Administrator, and IT professional, I feel very strongly that the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement will do nothing to punish past 
monopolistic practices, or to prevent future violations of anti-
trust law.
    Most importantly, what the settlement fails to address is that 
Microsoft is already entrenched in a dominant, monopolistic 
position, achieved in large part through unfair business practices.
    Creating a Technical Committee may (or may not) help with future 
problems, but does nothing to fix what has already transpired.
    Lastly, I would point out that much of Microsoft's monopoly is 
maintained through mechanisms not mentioned in the settlement. For 
example, Microsoft Word is the dominant word processing software 
mainly because it's file format is proprietary and controlled by 
Microsoft-and changed frequently, so that no other program can 
reliably use it. If a standard file format were enforced, competing 
products would have a chance to co-exist and interoperate with Word; 
something that just cannot happen today.
    I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this 
settlement and seek stronger action against Microsoft.
    Walt Hunnel
    Systems Administrator
    Lawrence Memorial Hospital
    325 Maine
    Lawrence, KS 66044
    785 840-2957
    Pager #785-691-3863



MTC-00018849

From: Mark ``Adam'' Baum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As it is written, I am unhappy with many aspects of the Proposed 
Final Judgement against Microsoft.
    Hypothetical situation #1:
    I'm a mechanic who has routinely worked on Ford cars, among many 
others. With my many years of experience, I've come up with an idea 
for a product that car drivers may want to purchase and install in 
their car-maybe a sensor that monitors gas flow and emissions 
and automatically tunes the engine while it is being driven. I've 
tested my prototype, and (knowing that it meets relevant EPA 
requirements) I'm ready to mass-produce this product and introduce 
it to potential customers.
    * The specs for Ford's engines are openly available. * I am 
allowed to use my Sears Craftsman tools to create this product. * 
Although this product was originally designed and built for a Ford, 
I am allowed to sell this product to Chevy owners if they should 
choose to buy it and install it on their Chevy. My product may 
become obsolete if Ford changed their engine specs on future models. 
Ford may even incorporate a similar device into their future models. 
But I would not expect Ford lawyers to sue me over my product's 
initial release.
    Hypothetical situation #2: I'm an Independant Software 
Vendor who has routinely worked on Microsoft Windows computers, 
among many others. With my many years of experience, I've come up 
with an idea for a product that computer users may want to purchase 
and install in their computer-maybe a piece of software that 
monitors the way I ``drag and drop'' items between my 
various applications and automatically anticipates when I may want 
certain items. I've tested my prototype, and (knowing that it 
includes an add-on ``redistributable component'') I'm 
ready to mass-produce my product and introduce it to potential 
customers.
    * The proposed judgement allows Microsoft to continue to hide 
much of the API (Application Programming Interface) that would make 
it possible for this product to run under the Windows Operating 
System. In fact, the judgement's narrow definition of 
``API'' does not even cover many aspects of the real API 
that third-party applications must address.
    * The proposed judgement allows Microsoft to completely ban this 
product if it has been developed, even in part, using non-Microsoft 
tools from GNU, PERL, SCSL, any flavor of Linux, or any other 
``Publicly Available Software''.
    * The proposed judgement allows Microsoft to specifically ban 
the use of this product on any non-Microsoft Windows-compatible 
operating system. Isn't this proposed judgement supposed to *reduce* 
Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive practices?
    Mark ``Adam'' Baum
    Software Engineer
    Lockheed Martin ATM
    Eagan, MN



MTC-00018850

From: Wilcoxon, Steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti Trust 
suit is letting them off too easy. MS has been found guilty of using 
their monopoly powers illegally by

[[Page 26640]]

integrating the IE web browser. It still continues today. They have 
extended it by making the MS Update site the only place to go to get 
software updates and then that site REQUIRES the use of IE in order 
to update Windows 9x and newer. If they have other methods 
available, they have been working hard to keep normal users from 
finding it.
    Steven Wilcoxon



MTC-00018851

From: Dave Heinen
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/23/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement IS BAD BAD BAD. My small company has had 
dealings with Microsoft. They are a predatory monopoly. USDOJ caved 
in on this matter and has FAILED to fulfill it's antitrust mission.



MTC-00018852

From: Kurt Overberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm against this settlement on the grounds that many of the 
terms of the settlement are too narrow. Making microsoft publish 
their APIs is a good idea. However, the definition of API is so 
narrow that Microsoft wouldn't have to publish the really important 
ones, such as the DirectX API, which microsoft uses across the 
board. PLEASE DON'T ALLOW THIS SETTLEMENT!
    Thanks!
    /kurt



MTC-00018853

From: Aaron Crabtree
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00018854

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my understanding that Section III.A.2. of the proposed 
settlement allows Microsoft to ``punish'' OEM's who ship a 
computer with anything other than the Windows operating system. The 
effect of this sort of behavior is evident in the fearful behavior 
of IBM when it was trying to establish OS/2 as an alternative to 
Windows at the same time that it wanted to offer Windows to those 
who chose it. The upshot of this, in my case, is that on two of the 
last three computers I purchased, I was forced to purchase Microsoft 
Windows, an operating system I never put into use on those those 
copmuters (except, of course, the first time I turned the computers 
on). In short, the apparently weak settlement proposal from my 
Department of Justice does nothing to address the manner in which 
Microsoft's monopolistic behavior has damaged me.
    Thank you very much.
    David Sawyer
    2360 Decatur Ave. N.
    Golden Valley, MN 55427
    (763) 546-9274



MTC-00018855

From: De Mickey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sirs:
    I find the proposed Final Judgement inadequate. It does not 
redress the monopolistic actions committed by Microsoft, nor does it 
inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. It 
makes no attempt to address ``ill-gotten gains'' garnered 
by microsoft through its anticompetitive practices, even though the 
company's illegal tactics have placed it in a very advantageous 
position. In order to make anticompetitive behavior unprofitable, 
there should be substantive punishment. But more importantly, there 
seems to be little in the proposal to prevent future abuses.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Mickey
    Daniel D. Mickey
    Software Engineer
    6769 Rimmer Court
    Dublin, OH 43017



MTC-00018856

From: Robert Bowles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:56pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement is BAD
    I am very upset at the limp slap that the US government is 
giving Microsoft. I have worked in the tech sector for 10 years and 
have watched microsoft steamroll innovation at every turn. Try to 
find an email client for windows that is not made by microsoft. How 
about a word processor? They don't exist. Microsoft has so 
devastated the competition by giving away such services or buying 
out competitors that it holds all the cards. I can understand why 
the federal government is afraid of microsoft. The government runs 
windows on their computers, too.
    Please look into more punitive action against this corporate 
bully.
    Robert Bowles



MTC-857

From: DARREN JUILFS
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I have been following the debate about Microsoft and its 
behavior from the beginning. I believe that Microsoft should be 
split into two groups: an OS group and an Application Group. It is 
the only way to stop Microsoft from integrating its applications 
into its Operating Systems which gives it an unfair advantage. The 
proposed settlement of distributing software and computers to under-
privileged schools will have the opposite effect from punishment and 
will actually help Microsoft break into the education market where 
other computer manufacturers, (namely Apple), still have a healthy 
share.
    Darren Juilfs
    KD Manufacturing
    1301 115th Ave NW
    Coon Rapids, MN 55448
    tel: 763-574-8392
    fax: 763-757-7174



MTC-00018858

From: Pachik, Kurt D.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is way too weak to have any real effect 
on M$ or towards the restoration of competition in the many markets 
M$ dominates. Please do not cave-in to the evil software giant.
    Kurt Pachik



MTC-00018859

From: Joshua O'Connor-Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. I support the notes 
provided at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Joshua O'Connor-Rose



MTC-00018860

From: George Seff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Clearly-these issues are problems: The 
Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) prohibits certain behaviors by 
Microsoft towards OEMs, but curiously allows the following 
exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems. By allowing these practices, the 
Poposed Final Judgement is encouraging Microsoft to extend its 
monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to leverage it 
into new areas.
    Thanks for your time.
    George A. Seff
    President

[[Page 26641]]



MTC-00018861

From: Brian Reuter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is inadequate. While it addresses 
Microsoft manipulation of OEMs to stifle competition, and it 
ostensibly allows users to remove offending software, it still 
leaves microsoft in a position where it continues to be anti-
competitive. To ensure it has no competition, Microsoft can and will 
begin to license it's non-standard proprietary APIs only to 
companies which Microsoft approves of, while scorning any company 
that may compete with Microsoft applications. Such a situation is 
equally harmful to independent software vendors, or companies which 
may vie to compete in the same market.
    There is no other adequate settlement than to divide microsoft 
into an operating systems company, and an applications company each 
with separate ownership and a separate board of directors. Any 
collusion between applications and operating systems will by it's 
nature produce a situation where an outside vendor cannot possibly 
compete with Microsoft. The Microsoft Operating Systems company, 
further, should be required to publish for free (or a nominal charge 
for material) all API and system functions with complete 
documentation (including errata, secret functions etc.) for any 
party interested, without any legal agreement required. Further, the 
Microsoft Operating Systems company cannot enter into any agreement 
with an outside company in which information not otherwise available 
publically is disclosed. My opinions are my own, and independent of 
my company.
    Brian Reuter 2F-215 Murray Hill, NJ (908) 582-3837
    Member of Technical Staff Bell-Labs, Lucent Technologies



MTC-00018862

From: RobCoen@verdugo hillshospital.org@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgement is bad. It will not restrain 
Microsoft from it chosen path of anti-competetive business 
practices. I am convinced significant improvement of Windows will 
diminish and the PC computing experience will become increasingly 
restrictive, intrusive, and dissatisfying for the end user. Computer 
professionals will have to increasingly be upgrading, re-installing 
and repairing damage to PC functionality because of poorly writen 
code.
    If cars crashed as often as Windows PCs do in normal 
configurations, It would be suicidal to drive to work. If banking 
computer systems were as susseptable to hackers as your home PC's 
financial records, we would have to put cash inside the matress at 
home. The point is that a decent company can make a safe and 
relyable computer system, while Microsoft doesn't. Dan Kegels 
comments on the proposed Final Settlement undoubtedly raise mostly 
valid issues. The PFS is UNACCEPTABLE! I believe Microsoft will not 
agree to ANY meaningfull settlement, so plan on an using an 
dictatorial fonding of judgement, and use a unbending judge 
determined to give competiton to Microsoft to administrate this 
edict and keeping a talented and committed persons of the Judges 
choosing to be the ``teeth'' and bite. I still think 
breaking the company up in to Operating systems and Applications 
divisions and perhaps a new products (with exclusion of anything 
derived from the Windows user interface). Feel free to spend my tax 
dollars to accomplish this, but do it right and plan on a continuous 
fight until Bill Gates retires.
    Rob Coen, computer professional since 1979,
    P.S. My views haven't changed any more than Microsoft's in the 
last 10 years.



MTC-00018863

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional, I would like to voice a piece of my 
opinion regarding the proposed settlement to the Microsoft trial. I 
am wholeheartedly disappointed that such brazen attitudes and 
disregard for the law and the public should be permitted to go 
unpunished. I do not believe that the restrictions and remedies 
planned out in the settlement will be any assistance to preventing 
Microsoft from further breaking the law and abusing their position 
of power. With the growing pressure from Microsoft to use their 
software in ever increasing roles, the danger of insecurities in 
their software are mounting daily. Viral plagues have swept over the 
world's mail and web servers (regardless of the software installed) 
over the past several months that have cost countless hours and 
dollars. They have used anti-competitive practices as a monopoly to 
exclude other vendors from the market. They have been often accused 
(and with rather well documented evidence against them) of 
maliciously going out to financially destroy competitors and steal 
or reverse-engineer their intellectual property. They have been 
caught blatantly lying in court on this very case with their 
``simulation'' of uninstalling Internet Explorer. I do not 
feel that any of the remedies presented will effectively change 
their long-term strategies in any way. For a single example, the two 
``top ten'' lists for OEM sale of Windows effectively 
legitimizes the entire pricing scheme that MS used to squeeze our 
competing licenses from desktop sales. Furthermore, although I 
personally detest long legal forms, I dread that Mr. Gates, who 
quibbled over the definition of ``hit team'' and 
``jihad'' as used in his internal memorandums will find 
the legal restraints rather slippery. The legal system does not 
appear to cope well with rapidly evolving markets and definitions. 
However, much of the case involves questions on the legal 
definitions of ``Operating System'' and 
``Browser'' yet the judgement relies very heavily on the 
definitions of ``middleware'', ``retaliate'', 
and ``reasonably necessary''. With this going on, the 
remedy still gives the definition of ``operating system'' 
back to Microsoft with the line: ``The software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' I strongly recommend that 
the resolution to this case undergo major revisions. I personally 
think the section regarding the TC has very positive points, even 
though it has received much criticism. I would push a bit further in 
trying to extend their scope of investigation, probably by 
tightening the non-disclosure contract, and use this as a basis for 
giving the final few steps of access to the software. If they can 
review all of the (normally private) contracts and question anyone 
in the company, why should their access to the software source code 
be limited by an agreement made (and from what I understand, 
alterable at will) by Microsoft? Finally, there is one major section 
lacking from this proposed remedy. There does not appear to be any 
restitution. This seems to be one large nothing from the Federal 
Courts. Merely a ``Don't do that again'' approach. As much 
as I would like to see several zeros of corporate accounts be 
redirected to organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, 
I realize that this at best a questionable act. I think that a 
series of financial penalties based on a percentage of the gross 
corporate earnings should first be applied to the company, with even 
stronger penalties prepared in advance, ready for the possibility 
that Microsoft may decide to continue to test the mettle of the 
court system.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Marker



MTC-00018864

From: Henry Timo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the proposed settlement is a very bad idea: it 
fails to prohibit anticompetitive practices and does not require 
Microsoft to list which software patents protect the Windows APIs. 
This settlement allows and encourages anticompetitive practices to 
continue, and is therefore -not- in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Henry Timo; Software Engineer
    Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00018865

From: Mitchell, Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are alternatives. Don't blame Microsoft because you didn't 
buy one. Linux is in the stores except it currently isn't as user 
friendly. Mac's are around but they advertise in the back corner.
    Michael Mitchell
    Anti-Virus Engineer
    Enterprise Messaging Team/Worldwide Anti-Virus Team
    Tek Systems * ITSC



MTC-00018866

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please count my name as another US citizen, residing in the 
state of Minnesota, as

[[Page 26642]]

being opposed to the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. I have 
been using computers professionally since 1980, and I do not feel 
that Microsoft has been acting in my, or my company's (Tringa Press) 
best interests, for at least several years. ``Donating'' 
proprietary Microsoft products to secondary schools seems 
particularly ill-advised, especially at a time when we're moving 
towards a more open, global economy. We now have a chance to train 
our future information workers in the use of tools whose primary aim 
is productivity and empowerment, not pleasing investors.
    HJ Schmidt
    Managing Editor
    Tringa Press



MTC-00018867

From: J.D. Forinash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Concerns.
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am writing to voice my opinion on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I do not believe that the proposed settlement settles 
anything. Microsoft will go effectively unpunished, and will not 
lose any ability to engage in the activities that brought them to 
this point. While the relevance of the latter may not be important, 
the former, I believe, is. No company should be allowed to use 
anticompetitive practices to keep other businesses from having a 
chance.
    As an example, take ``PC compatible'' hardware. If 
someone buys a ``PC compatible'' system, he has the option 
of running Microsoft's Windows, Sun's Solaris x86, Linux, or BSD on 
the machine. For a while, we saw major vendors ship Linux machines, 
but those aren't advertised anymore, and are only still available 
from a select few major vendors. As of this writing, featured 
business PCs on the following vendor's websites have _no 
way_ to order a machine without some version of Microsoft's 
Windows operating system: Dell Gateway Compaq IBM Sony Is it 
possible that all of these vendors have policies that make it 
unfeasible for them to install another operating system on their 
PCs, or even -not load an operating system at all?- 
Certainly not. Microsoft has used their market power to arrange that 
any PC purchased from any reputable manufacturer is required to also 
buy Windows, whether they need it or not. Any 
``settlement'' between Microsoft and the people of the 
United States of America should require that Microsoft is not able 
to use such strongarm tactics and is punished for using these 
tactics in the past.
    John D. Forinash
    Atlanta, Georgia



MTC-00018868

From: Chase Caster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settelment is unfair to all those who 
wish to write (and use) similar software to that which Microsoft 
uses. The Windows operating system is written in such a way that it 
is difficult to use anything other than microsoft software for much 
of what computers are most used for. And because of that, not only 
are outide applications hard to find and use, but other operating 
systems are nearly impossible to come by because Windows is designed 
to be incompatable with them. If we let Microsoft keep their 
monopoly, we will be doing a great injustice to the computing world.



MTC-00018869

From: Matthew Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think there are serious flaws with the Microsoft settlement as 
currently proposed by the government and Microsoft. While I feel 
that more drastic measures are fully appropriate (like opening 
Windows source code and Office file formats), there remain problems 
even given the more moderate type of conduct remedies included in 
this order. Along those lines, the proposal by the dissenting states 
is far more effective.
    Section III.H, for instance, allows users to remove Microsoft 
Middleware from the computer. It would be more reasonable to have 
Microsoft sell a version of Windows without the middleware, giving 
consumers a choice in the matter and allowing competition in the 
various areas. Once Microsoft gets a piece of software into Windows, 
there is little reason for people to go out and buy a separate 
equivalent piece-even if the independent software would be 
better value.
    Also, section IV calls for a technical committee to oversee 
Microsoft's conduct. The TC has very little power to force 
compliance on their own, however. They are also prohibited from 
testifying in court-excluding from deliberation the most 
qualified witnesses. The TC must have the power to fine, and 
preferably also the right to testify in court. Finally, there is an 
expiration date of five years on the agreement. None of the conduct 
required of Microsoft is onerous or unusual-it describes the 
bare minimum (if that) of fair and responsible behavior. The 
expiration date-if included at all-should be 
significantly farther out.
    Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
    William of Occam



MTC-00018870

From: Jim Stocking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is very important to punish Microsoft for blatantly 
illegal constraint of trade. While I realize the importance of the 
company, I also was one of those Bell System employees who saw our 
structure dismantled for a whole lot less reason. The tentative 
settlement is laughably easy on Microsoft, and I wonder why a split 
of the company into three parts: operating systems, software 
applications, and internet is not in order.
    Jim Stocking
    1066 Randolph Drive
    Yardley PA 19067



MTC-00018871

From: Frank Tobin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. As Bachelor of Computer Science and an independent Open 
Source/Free Software software developer for the past 5 years, 
working on community, commercial, and internal products for the 
Unix/Linux platform, I am acutely aware of the problems caused by 
the illegal Microsoft monopoly. I believe that the proposed 
settlement does not fully address the goals it set out to 
accomplish, and allows for many loopholes to be exploited in the 
future.
    First, I believe that many provisions of the proposed settlement 
do not carry the foresight needed to deal with easily foreseeable 
problems that will arise. To live in the information world, one 
needs to not only have a good grasp of the ``now', but also the 
issues of `tomorrow'. The proposed settlement does a fair job 
of addressing many issues that one can point to today, but many of 
the terms and definitions are too strict, not capable of handling 
the rapid morphs in technology that are inevitable. The terms, 
definitions, and specific products listed in sections such as 
Section III: D need to be loosened, or else many loopholes will be 
exploited.
    My second main concern is Microsoft's exclusionary licensing, 
which goes beyond those issues addressed in Section III.F and III.G. 
There is a large and growing number of Open Source and Free Software 
pieces of software being community-developed and freely available 
with source. However, licenses such as the Microsoft Windows Media 
Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA strictly prohibit bundling with Open Source and 
Free Software. This is an excellent example of Microsoft leveraging 
its monopoly not only against commercial competitors, but also 
*community* software projects. This is a clear example of the anti-
consumer and anti-community behavior that Microsoft has repeatedly 
shown over the past several years, and not specifying provisions to 
prohibit is is unacceptable. I am also a co-cosigner of the open 
letter at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html , since I believe 
the issues that it brings up are also my concerns. In summary, it 
also concludes that the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest, for the most important reasons I have already stated, and 
more. Please do the right thing by amending the settlement so that 
it keeps tighter reins on Microsoft, and thus allowing the market to 
develop in a freer fashion, unchained from Microsoft. I am in favor 
of the changes recommended at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#fix
    To let the current settlement stand would be gross negligence 
for the health of the community and market.



MTC-00018872

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-Not Strong Enough
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am writing to register my disagreement with the proposed 
settlement in the

[[Page 26643]]

Microsoft case. I feel that this company is incapable of restraining 
itself, and will take advantage of any loopholes in the settlement 
to the greatest extent possible. If there was any doubt about its 
behavior before, its actions during and since the trial make this 
abundantly clear. Who can forget, for example, the doctored video 
tape shown to the judge by Microsoft. And since the trial there are 
numerous examples of further anti-competative behavior. Just in the 
last couple of weeks I've seen the following items reported:
    1. Microsoft is suing a company making a Linux-based operating 
system that will run Windows applications, (Lindows-see http:/
/www.lindows.com). Microsoft says that consumers will confuse the 
name Lindows with Windows. Huh? It seems more likely they are trying 
to hurt a potential competitor by piling on legal bills and 
problems.
    2. Microsoft has filed a motion to bar the public and the media 
from seeing depositions related to the case, (these depositions 
having been opened by court order). Article on the subject at http:/
/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nf/20020110/tc/15719-1.html What are 
they trying to hide?
    3. Microsoft recently tried to rig a poll at ZDNet, (story at 
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html), to 
make it appear as though their .NET initiative was gaining massive 
ground. It's a lie designed to try to convince IT people to start 
using their product.
    If these don't seem to be a big deal, consider that I found 
these three items for the last two weeks just from a quick search on 
a website, (http://www.slashdot.org). The number and type of items 
from the last two weeks is the norm, not the exception. If you want 
to see more examples of their bullying and dishonest tactics, go to 
slashdot and search. You'll find many, many more. Microsoft has done 
everything it can to prevent competition. It has broken the law and 
has demonstrated that it will continue to do so, as well as lie and 
manipulate wherever possible. The government is the only entity 
capable of restraining them. Please, for the sake of businesses 
trying to innovate and make a living, for the sake of freedom of 
choice for the American consumer, assume that Microsoft will try to 
subvert any settlement and will continue its monopolistic practices. 
Fashion a new settlement that doesn't give them any wiggle 
room-one that assumes the worst in terms of their future 
behavior. They have proven, and continue to prove, that this is the 
only reasonable course of action.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Mitchell
    15260 Surrey House Way
    Centreville, VA 20120



MTC-00018873

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement, as written, is a bad idea. It will 
encourage Microsoft to continue it's monopolistic ways. I also feel 
that it is unenforcable, as there is no real punishment for non-
compliance.
    Please reject the settlement with Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Jim Herrmann



MTC-00018874

From: Maverick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Some of my professional associates pointed me to this email 
address as a place where I could voice my concerns over the severely 
lacking Microsoft Settlement. In essence, the proposed settlement as 
it stands will do nothing to remedy the damages caused to the 
computing industry by Microsoft, and does nothing to punish them for 
doing it. Dan Kegel has written an excellent analysis of the 
weaknesses in the PFJ here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html 
I have also asked to have my name added to those listed below. I 
don't have the time to cover every problem in detail (and I suspect 
you may no have time to read it), so I will only cover what seems to 
be the least obvious and most overlooked way in which Microsoft 
extends and maintains their strangle hold on the industry: 
Proprietary file formats. Few would argue that Microsoft Word 
document files have become the de facto standard document exchange 
format. Most of my clients send me documents in Word format, and 
most expect to receive them in Word format. That has been the norm 
for every company I've been employed by, and every client I've 
worked for. What happens when someone sends another a document in 
Word Format (or Excel, PowerPoint, etc, etc)? The sender is not only 
making the assumption that the receiver has purchased a Microsoft 
Operating System and purchased a copy of Microsoft Word, they are 
assuming that they have CURRENT versions of both. It is a well 
documented fact that different version of the same Microsoft 
products produce files that are not readable by differing versions 
of the same product. And the same version of a product doesn't run 
on all versions of Microsoft's operating systems. Thus forcing all 
users in to an constant cycle of upgrades of both their operating 
system and office product. The proprietary nature of the formats, 
along with their constant alteration prevents a third party from 
reverse engineering the format to produce a competing product. By 
the time that they can produce a product that can accurately read 
and write a Microsoft Office file, there is a new version of Office 
on the market that isn't compatible, and thus making their product's 
ability moot. I hope that this has shed some light on the concerns 
of the case, and helps lead to a remedy for the damages caused by 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time,
    Steven Edwards



MTC-00018875

From: Jesper Juhl
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi there,
    I'm writing this small note to tell you that I think the 
proposed settlement in the ``United States vs. Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit'' is a bad idea. It is no way near hard 
enough on Microsoft. Since I am not a US citisen (I'm Danish) you 
probably don't care much about my comment, but I just wanted to add 
my name to the list of people objecting to the settlement.
    Regards,
    Jesper Juhl



MTC-00018876

From: Mark Drake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit 
the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes 
against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is 
able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot 
commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their 
illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their 
abuses and not for the American people in general. While the Court's 
desire that a settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong 
to reach an unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong 
that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Drake
    Military Member Stationed at Keflavik, Iceland



MTC-00018877

From: John R. Johns II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice representative:
    I am writing to voice my disapproval of the current Microsoft 
Settlement. There is a simple and clear problem with the 
arrangement. Microsoft has been found guilty of violating antitrust 
laws. While the current settlement may offer some provisions to 
reduce antitrust behavior in the future, it lacks a penalty for 
Microsoft's past transgressions. Disregarding all other problems 
with the settlement terms, the absence of any punishment should be 
enough reason to reject the current deal. You are the Department of 
Justice... where is the justice in this settlement?
    Sincerely,
    John Richard Johns II

[[Page 26644]]

    Sunnyvale, California



MTC-00018878

From: David Hirsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I deplore the proposed settlement in its current state. 
Microsoft, through it's illegal monopoly, has poisoned the current 
Operating System and software market, and continues to take anti-
competitive steps designed to preserve its monopoly; the proposed 
settlement is so weak as to be useless in correcting this behavior. 
Microsoft's previous conduct with respect to settlements to which it 
has agreed shows that a strong enforcement mechanism must be put in 
place, one that will cripple Microsoft's ability to behave in an 
anti-competitive fashion. The current settlement must not include 
any distribution of Microsoft products to right previous 
wrongs-that only helps Microsoft retain it's monopoly status. 
Rather than providing software or hardware to schools, the Court 
should calculate the RETAIL value of these products, and make 
Microsoft give the money directly to the schools instead. The court 
should take steps to ensure that any actions taken apply to future 
versions of Windows, including Windows CE, Windows XP, and Windows 
NT, Pocket PC, etc. and any descendants of these operating systems. 
These steps should include the release of all API's (the current 
definition of API in the settlement is too narrow, and would allow 
the remedy to be skirted by Microsoft) to software developers. The 
remedy should provide assurance that Microsoft will continue to 
develop and release versions of its main software packages for the 
Macintosh OS. Perhaps a requirement that the top-selling 40 percent 
of non-operating-system software must be released for Macintosh 
within 9 months of its release for a desktop Windows OS.
    Dave Hirsch
    Assistant Professor
    Department of Geology
    Western Washington University



MTC-00018879

From: Radu Filip
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Radu Filip, and I'm working for a dot-com company 
located in US and I would like to express my opinion about the anti-
trust case against Microsoft and about the proposed settlement.
    Like many other peoples, I'm concerning about monopoly held by 
Microsoft in desktop software and they way they behave in doing 
business. Concrete, as an end-user and as person involved every day 
with IT world, I have ``problems'' with the following 
issues, that comes from Microsoft monopoly.
    For each problem I will address bellow, I'll explain it shortly, 
I'll try to give and example, I'll try to suggest a remedy and 
explain how it can prevent further monopoly situation.
    (1) Closed file formats
    No one has the right to make me ``hostage'' of their 
software. No matter what product I'm using, I should be able to 
either buy nother product or to develop my own one in-house that 
should be able to work with the files made with the old product. For 
example, if I'm using Microsoft Office and I create with it a lot of 
documents or spreadsheet files, I should be able to quit anytime 
using Microsoft Office if I want, in favour of StarOffice, for 
example, and continue to use the documents and spreadsheets I have 
been created. In order to do this, the specifications regarding the 
format (how data are recorded into files) of my documents and 
spreadsheets must be freely available so that other programs be able 
to interpret these documents. This openening of sepecifications 
should apply to all kind of files, made by various applications, not 
only by Microsoft one. Companies can compete by developing products 
with various features, not by making their users hotages. Users 
should be able to interchange data anytime they wish, no matter what 
programs we're using. A goo dexample for this one is the web, where 
various web servers that runs on a multiple types of computers and 
operating systems, are serving various web browsers (Netscape, 
Internet Explorer, Opera, Konqueror, etc.) that also runs on mutiple 
platforms. This is possible because the format of web pages of 
freely available, as well as te way (the protocol) the browsers and 
servers are using in order to deliver these pages. Any webmaster can 
choose any websever he wish, and any user can use any browser he 
wish. This is freedom.
    (2) Closed protocols
    No one should have the right to make me ``hostage'' of 
their software systems by hidding way their programs are 
communictating. If me, as a user I own a Linux computer and a 
Windows one, I should be able to interconnect them in any way I 
wish, no matter who programmed Linux and who produced Windows, in 
the same way I can use two diffrent cars I own or two TV's and so 
on. Protocols are ``communication languages'' used by 
programs or devices to comunicate, in order to provide a service. 
This service can be e-mail, web, accessing filesystems etc. 
Protocols (or standards) are in every program and in every device. 
For example, because of Microsoft monopoly, I'm not able to read MY 
OWN data stored on a Microsoft filesystem from a Linux operating 
system, if I have both of them installed and I run Linux. This is 
happens because Microsoft is interested to lock up their users by 
preventing them to use a diffrent operating system. And this is not 
normal, since their programs should do WHAT I NEED, not what 
Microsoft NEEDS. The same is for communication protocols. If they 
build a mail server like Exchange, then if I own a copy of Exchange 
I should be able to use ANY client program to access it, not only 
Microsoft programs. Thus, like for file formats, all major protocols 
should have specifications freely available, so other programmers be 
able to build their own programs to intercommunicate with the 
existing one. One example is Microsoft SMB protocol used to sharing 
files between computers in a local network. They lock up this 
protocol so only windows computer can share files, computers with 
other operating systems being unable to join in sharing files. They 
kept hidden the specification and change them over time so other 
operating systems cannot do the same. But me, as USER, I HAVE ALL 
RIGHT to share MY FILES between MY OWN COMPUTERS, no matter what 
software I'm using. It's my right to do so. Like we have or or many 
public standards for TV broadcasting, like we have Web to share 
information, like we have driving on right side on the roads, we 
should be able to have access to specification of every major 
protocol used, so we do not become slaves of one corporation or one 
organization.
    (3) Extension of public protocols
    This is a way for companies like Microsoft to transform public 
protocols into closed ones, by adding their own closed extension, 
undocumented. They motivate this by ``addig featured and value 
to customers''. In fact, they add this extension to justify 
their behaviour to be the only one to develop programs that use that 
features. This is also a danger because public protocols like Web, 
E-mail or worse, TCP/IP (protocol used all over the Internet to send 
data between computers), can become property of one single 
organization. They can impose the adoption of this proprietary 
extensions by using their monopoly on desktop market with Windows, 
and by making new versions of Windows the only products that support 
their extensions and let others alternatives outside. Since this 
extensions are subject of technical details, unrelevant for the 
large public, the market cannot see the danger to adopt this owned 
standard and this way large numbers of customers become hostages 
without their knowledge. For example, they can alter the HTTP, 
protocol used to deliver webpages from server to web browsers, by 
adding some ``features'' in away that only their Internet 
Explorer (currently about 75% of web browsers market) with be able 
to deal only with their IIS (web server) so every other web browser 
or web server will be out of game and this way, they will be able to 
own the web and will control the information that flows through it. 
Should be freedom to speak controlled by someone? One bad example 
could be Microsoft Passport, a software feature build only in 
Internet Explorer and that can be used only with websites serverd by 
Microsoft Web Servers (IIS). There is no technical reason for this 
exclusive behaviour, it's only a ``feature'' to make 
peoples using their software only and exclude the others. Me, as 
programmer, I cannot build or modify a webbroser that use Passport 
Services, because I don't have specifications of Passport. This 
force me as user to use Microsoft Internet Explorer to read MY mail 
on MSN, for example. And this means NO CHOICE, being a way to take 
control over web. There is nothing wrong in improving standards, but 
major standards should always have free specifications available to 
anyone.
    (4) Imposing Microsoft software by using Windows monopoly First 
of all, when I'll buy a new computer I should be able to CHOOSE what 
operating system and applications are incloded or even to CHOOSE to 
NOT BUY any operating system at all. Right now, because of Microsoft 
way to impose deals

[[Page 26645]]

with computers manufacters, I HAVE NO CHOICE but to buy a Windows 
version with every new computer, even if I'm planning to use 
completly diffrent operating systems like Linux, sold buy companies 
like RedHat. Why, as customers, I'm forced to pay for something I 
don't need?
    When I buy a new computer, I should be able to choose:
-if I want Windows or other operating system or any operating 
system at all
-if I want other Microsoft applications that comes with 
Windows or not, by choosing alternatives (like StarOffice instead of 
Microsoft Office or by using Netscape instead of Internet Explorer 
as web browser and so on) or I don't want any application at all 
(this should appy to EVERY operating system or application, not only 
to Microsoft) Also, not only customers, but every delear of 
computers should be able to be be free to choose whatever operating 
systems or applications want to pre-install on computers he sell. 
Also, customers should be able to accept or refuse this software 
offerings when buy a hardware (a computer).
    (5) Driving users to Microsoft websites and services
    This is another form of locking up customers to Microsoft 
products and it's derivate on the way they impose their software. In 
current situation with forcing users to buy Windows with every 
computer and using by default only Internet Explorer that drives 
users only to Microsoft related sites and services like MSN, the 
real threat is to use this monololy to became a hegemony, by making 
Microsoft not only control the software we're using in every 
computer, but also to control what we see and hear. This way, the 
George Orwell's 1984 novell has a real chance to hit the reality. 
What is the difference between a totalitar regime that controls all 
what we're doing by law and a private, commercial monopoly that 
control what we're doing via tools (software) we're using? No one, 
they are the same, a single exclusivistig group controling 
everything by a method imposed to every one. This is no democracy 
and no freedom.
    Conclusions
    (A) From user point of view
    (a) Every single user must be able to choose what operating 
system or application to use (if he want some) when buying a new 
computer; this require freedom to users and sellers to choose 
applications to install on new computers
    (b) Every single user must be able to switch applications and 
keep using the same documents as before or be able to convert them; 
this require freely available specifications for data formats 
(files, filesystems)
    (c) Every single user must be able to use any operating system 
or program he want, in order to deal with other operating systems or 
applications that offer services (local, on a network or over the 
Internet); this require freely available specifications to all major 
protocols that are parts of the core services of the Internet
    (B) From sofware companies point of view
    (a) Every program must be able to use user's data made with 
other programs and be able to intercommunicate with other programs, 
so programs (and vendors) compete on feature and support level, not 
on lock-in ``improvements'' and ``innovations''; 
this require open specifications for file formats and protocols
    (b) Every software vendor should e able to make deals with 
hardware manufacturers, without being slaves of one single central 
software vendor that controls the markets and our lives; this 
require to avoid exclusive deals made by Microsoft that exclude 
others players to compete
    (C) From goverment point of view
    (a) Maybe it is a good idea to create an Agency that regulate IT 
markets in the same way as for Stock Exchange or other markets; this 
way, the competition will have a neutral referee, not like today 
when one player is also referre in the game
    (b) Anti-trust law should specify that companies that own a 
certain ammount of market share should be prohibited to use 
particular business methods like exclusive distribution of their 
products, in order to let smaller companies to compete. Each 
situation like this should be mentions in anti-trust law and 
supervised by an Agency (maybe the same as for (C.a)
    (c) Major (most common wide used) data formats and protocols 
should be put under the development of independent non-profit 
organizations (like W3C for web) that manage their evolution. Anti-
trust law should specify when a certain data format or protocol 
become wide used and in what condition the company that originally 
develop it should put its specifications under independent 
organization management. An Agency shoud take care this to be 
respected.
    (d) The anti-trust law should impose software vendors to conform 
to public specifications and an Agency (the same as for C.a) should 
take measures according to this law to assure all programs and 
services are using this common open protocols. These proposals (on 
point C) should help to prevent situation like this, when a single 
company tries to control all IT world using it's monopoly on user 
desktop market, threatening our freedom.
    Thank you for patience to reading this, Radu Filip
    Radu Filip -- [email protected] System 
Administrator



MTC-00018880

From: Volker, Jim
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The research I have done (or read from other which have done 
research) indicates to me the proposed solution is not a good one. I 
plan to send more detail in writing. Jim Volker Test Data Management 
Cottonwood Technology Group, Inc.
    phone: 480.970.3332 ext. 175
    fax: 480.970.3322



MTC-00018881

From: Eric Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your proposed settlement with Microsoft will make Neville 
Chamberlain sit up in his grave, smile, and pat you on the back. 
Unfortunately, MS just doesn't care what the court nor the Justice 
Department decides. They have shown continued disregard for 
agreements banning specific tactics and behaviors. Your proposed 
settlement isn't even a slap on the wrist. In effect, it's a victory 
for MS. There are some remedies that would help all injured by MS 
illegal maintenance of its monopoly. I leave the specifics of 
damages to the court, however, I do know one thing which would help 
the `rest of the world' compete more effectively with 
MS. Require MS to disclose fully the file formats MS applications 
and OS create and update. MS would have to consent not only to 
disclosing these formats, but to provide public detailed 
specifications when changes occur. If competitors can make precisely 
the same end product (an Excel file, Word) etc, they can engineer 
competitive methods to create these exact files. It sounds trivial, 
but it would help considerably.
    E. Moore



MTC-00018882

From: Colgan, Matt, ITD
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello-
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft Antitrust suit.
    It stinks. Most prosecutors pride themselves on getting a more 
stringent penalty for those who are convicted as a result of their 
efforts. The DOJ appears to have broken with that tradition. Some 
articles stated that the DOJ's offer to Microsoft was less of a 
penalty than what Microsoft themselves were offering before they 
were found guilty. This decision weighs very heavily on the future 
of the computing industry and innovation. Microsoft continues to be 
a baleful force to crush innovative new companies and products. 
Venture capitalists hesitate to fund software startup companies due 
to the looming threat of Microsoft's unfair competition. The 
settlement as it stands will serve to strengthen the entrenched, 
non-innovating, but highly profitable Microsoft corporation, at the 
expense of consumers and prospective innovators. I would suggest 
that a minimal punishment for the crimes Microsoft has been found 
guilty of would include a statement of culpability, and plausibly 
contrite statements by the directors of the company. If such 
statements are not forthcoming, the directors of the company should 
be forbidden from running the daily operations of the company.
    Thanks,
    Matt Colgan



MTC-00018883

From: rbrown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement terms with Microsoft are cheating the 
American people.
    Thank you,
    Robert Brown



MTC-00018884

From: Deke Clinger

[[Page 26646]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Greetings,
    I am writing regarding the proposed settlement of the antitrust 
action against Microsoft Corporation. I am very concerned that the 
settlement appears to do nothing to restore a competitive 
marketplace for operating system software or to punish Microsoft for 
their past misbehavior. There is nothing in the settlement regarding 
publishing Microsoft's Application Programming Interfaces 
(``APIs'') or document formats. These steps, combined with 
substantial penalties for failing to provide accurate and complete 
information, could result in real competition in the software 
industry.
    Microsoft's lack of contrition and commitment to ``business 
as usual'' is demonstrated in their every action: the proposed 
addition to Internet Explorer of ``smart tags'' that 
change the content of displayed web pages, the onerous new licensing 
and ``activation'' requirements of Windows XP, the brazen 
attempt to settle some of the many civil lawsuits against them while 
at the same stroke expanding their monopoly into the education 
market. Considering Microsoft's past practices and the outsized 
profits derived thereby, some sort of punitive damages would seem to 
be in order.
    The proposed settlement is a bad deal for the American software 
consumer and for the software industry in general. I'd like to see a 
settlement that includes a requirement for documentation of all 
Microsoft APIs and document formats, with suitable enforcement and 
penalties for lack of full disclosure.
    Sincerely,
    Deke Clinger
    602 West Fir Street #303
    San Diego, CA 92101



MTC-00018885

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed (largely by MicroSoft itself) settlement of 
the MicroSoft antitrust case is a joke.
    Bill Gates describes it as ``fair''. I DO NOT WANT a 
remedy that the offender accepts as ``fair''. How many 
convicted criminals regard their prison sentences as 
``fair''? I want a remedy that will make (particularly 
Bill Gates) whine to the press about ``punishment''. 
MicroSoft deserves to be punished. I want a remedy that will cause 
suffering on the part of MicroSoft, in reasonable balance to the 
amount of suffering that its monopoly abuses have caused to their 
competitors and to the rest of the computing industry in general. In 
particular, their rival, Netscape, was driven out of business by the 
anticompetitive practices of the MicroSoft monopoly. Any 
``remedy'' that falls short of at least threatening 
MicroSoft's present monopoly position is clearly insufficient.
    In my understanding, a remedy for monopoly abuse is supposed to 
do three things:
    1) Punish the offender, primarily by depriving them of the gains 
obtained by their illegal actions. The proposed 
``settlement'' does nothing to relieve MicroSoft of the 
market power they have gained by eliminating the Netscape 
Corporation and cornering the internet browser market. An 
appropriate remedy might be to require that 
MicroSoft_withdraw_their Internet Explorer product 
from the market. This product brings MicroSoft no revenue, and their 
sole purpose for purchasing it, releasing it, tying it into Windows, 
and illegally leveraging their Operating System monopoly to 
establish its dominance in the browser market was to destroy 
Netscape Navigator. It seems only fair to deprive Microsoft of the 
browser market monopoly obtained via Internet Explorer by depriving 
them of the product itself. Also, all the claims the defendant made 
about Explorer being ``irremovably integrated into the Windows 
operating system'' are perjuries. As a professional software 
engineer I can assure the court that, if ordered to do so, there is 
no technical barrier that would stop MicroSoft from removing 
Explorer from Windows.
    2) Repair the damage done to the market by the monopoly's 
actions. It would be pretty much impossible, now, to restore 
Netscape Navigator to the position it held before MicroSoft set out 
to destroy it. The elimination of Internet Explorer would at least 
open up the browser market for the several other products in this 
area to be able to compete on the basis of their relative merits, 
without MicroSoft shaping the playing field to favor its browser.
    3) Insure that the monopoly abuse does not recur. I do not 
believe that the proposed 3-person panel would be able to 
effectively monitor the abuses of the multibillion-dollar MicroSoft 
monopoly. In my opinion, the_only_way to stop their 
already escalating abuse of their monopoly in the internet browser 
market would be to take that illegally obtained monopoly away from 
them, again by forcing MicroSoft to withdraw Explorer from the 
browser market. I sincerely hope that the court will NOT approve the 
proposed settlement as it now stands. MicroSoft should be regarded 
as a repeat offender in the abuse of its Operating System monopoly, 
and penalized accordingly and quite harshly. The proposed settlement 
more closely resembles ``dinner and a movie'' than any 
sort of ``punishment'', and completely fails to address 
the issues which are supposed to be the goals of a monopoly abuse 
remedy.
    In an effort to assist the court in the development of an 
appropriate remedy in the MicroSoft case, I would again suggest that 
MicroSoft be ordered to withdraw the Explorer product, and be 
forbidden from re-entering the internet browser market for at least 
the next five years. Penalties for disobeying these orders (and you 
may rest assured that they_will_ be disobeyed) might 
best take the form of billion-dollar fines, to be paid to the Free 
Software Foundation, which is MicroSoft's sole credible competitor 
and the_last_ entity on this planet that the MicroSoft 
Empire would want to see its money go to support. While elegantly 
simple in concept, its effect on MicroSoft would be to positively 
end its present and illegally obtained monopoly in the internet 
browser marketplace, and prevent the otherwise inevitable future 
abuses thereof. I believe that this is the most appropriate and fair 
penalty for their actions. It is also a remedy that would be 
effectively enforceable in the real world. A breakup of MicroSoft 
into separate Operating System and Application Software companies 
would be simply impossible to administer. A triumvirate panel would 
be most ineffective, as it would lack the authority and probably the 
will to impose the severe, indeed draconian, sanctions that will 
clearly be required to force the offender to modify its illegal and 
immoral, but nonetheless quite profitable, business practices.
    Will Bill Gates like this? I think not, which is exactly what I 
want. You need to ask yourself who you are working for, Bill Gates 
and the MicroSoft Empire, or the general public?
    Michael Battle
    1817 N 51st St. Apt J
    Phoenix, AZ 85005



MTC-00018886

From: Quentin Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing as a software developer with 20 years of experience 
developing applications under Windows and Unix. I request that you 
firmly apply remedies that will stop Microsoft's anti-trust 
behavior. Their tactics force people such as myself to join their 
camp or else. Windows developers have endured years of faulty 
products and operating systems environments that in my opinion have 
significantly impeded the state of technology simply because it has 
taken 2-3 times longer than it should have to develop products 
in the windows environment. Look how quickly Linux has developed 
technical equality with any and all Microsoft operating system 
products. They have finally built a reasonably stable product but 
during their tenure have learned to control product development such 
that a stand-alone developer (such as myself) is locked into their 
upgrade cycles and over-priced tools.
    My recommendation is to closely evaluate all current and future 
product releases for antitrust violations, put the products before a 
peer review and make Microsoft pay the tab for the review process.
    Thanks for your time and hard work.
    Quentin Olson
    CEO, Global Retail Technology, LLC



MTC-00018887

From: toby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgment is seriously flawed, incomplete, and 
insufficient. The proposed remedies are largely unenforceable, do 
not adequately address the unlawful exclusionary actions, and will 
not likely

[[Page 26647]]

provide Microsoft sufficient motivation to correct its ingrained 
corporate culture of anti- competitive behavior. By themselves, the 
security loopholes around the full disclosure of ``middleware 
interfaces'' and server protocols are enough to render this 
proposed final judgment ineffective. As Microsoft is slowing 
learning, and as COB Bill Gates stated just this week, security MUST 
BE integral to their products (``middleware'' and 
operating systems) and services (server protocols) to be reliable. 
To permit non-disclosure of aspects of these interfaces and 
protocols when there are security considerations is to make both 
requirements meaningless.
    I would also like to specifically object to the structure of the 
onsite enforcement monitors. None of these three experts should be 
Microsoft employees, current or past. All three should be appointed 
by the court, and maintain no financial interest in Microsoft. As 
officers of the court, they need the ability to legally binding 
enforcement decisions.
    Toby Harness



MTC-00018888

From: Andy Catalano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not like the proposed Microsoft settlement because it 
contains many loopholes. I believe that Microsoft has, and will use 
these to invalidate the law and these loopholes will be difficult to 
fix after the law is passed. I can not support the law as it stands.
    Andy Catalano



MTC-00018889

From: Andr(00E9)-Francois Landry
To: Microsoft ATR,George W. Bush
Date: 1/23/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Tunney Act: A confession of shame, and a call to action
    Introduction
    My name is Jeremy White, and I am the CEO of CodeWeavers, the 
company most associated with the Wine project. Three years ago, I 
chose to refocus my company around the Wine project because I 
believed that Microsoft's stranglehold on the market was sucking all 
of the joy out of the computing field. For those of you who don't 
know, Wine is a project that makes it possible to run Windows 
application on Linux. If Wine were complete, then the combination of 
Wine+Linux would represent an effective competitor to the Microsoft 
Operating System Products. The Department of Justice and Microsoft 
have reached a tentative settlement of the United States vs. 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. It is widely believed that the proposed 
settlement does a very poor job and that it is critical that those 
of us who feel this way participate in the Tunney Act comment 
process. Under a law known as the Tunney Act, the court is required 
to consider public commentary before accepting any settlement. As 
you can imagine, many people have contacted me to ask for my help 
and input on the Microsoft case, and the Tunney Act proceeding in 
particular. I've met with attorneys here in Minnesota, as well as 
with the law firm that is handling the case for the states. I've 
spoken with wide range of people regarding this case. My Shame I 
have not yet submitted any comments to the Tunney Act comment 
process. I haven't even really engaged myself in the problem, at 
least not beyond responding politely to those that call me. Why this 
sucks I'm probably the U.S. citizen most involved in the Wine 
project, and if I haven't acted, then who will? I've heard a rumor 
that there are no shortage of comments from folks 
`encouraged' by Microsoft. Apparently, there are also a 
number of Sun/Java encouraged comments. But not much else. Bottom 
line: if we don't speak out now, we let Microsoft buy this one. What 
we should do Presumably, you're reading this page because you care 
as much as I do. If you're a U.S. citizen, now is the time to act. 
If you're not a U.S. citizen, forward this to a U.S. citizen you 
know.
    It's easy. Here are two ways to help:
    The easy way to do the `right' thing
    1. Open an email window to [email protected] (with 
a subject of `Microsoft Settlement').
    2. Read through some of the many comprehensive resources on this 
case and the Tunney Act proceedings:
    a. Dan Kegel's excellent collection of resources (mirror is 
here).
    3. Pick your favorite problem with the proposed judgement. One 
is fine; hopefully a lot of people will be doing this.
    4. Compose a simple, polite, email describing the problem and 
how you feel about it.
    5. Send the email, and if you like, bcc (important do not cc) us 
at [email protected].
    6. [Optional, but nice] Print your letter out (maybe reformat it 
a little), and mail it to:
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    The truly easy way to at least add your voice
    1. Send email to [email protected] (with a subject 
of `Microsoft Settlement') saying that you think the proposed 
settlement is bad idea (type only 3 words, if you must). What counts 
is the number of complaints.
    2. Send email to [email protected] indicating that you 
will stand as a co signer of Dan Kegel's comments. Please give your 
city, state, title, and affiliation. Send it now. The comment period 
closes Monday morning (the 28th).
    By the time you think to come back to this page, it will be too 
late.



MTC-00018890

From: Dick Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:08pm
Subject: Proposed settlement: please reject it
    I urge you to reject Microsoft's proposed settlement.
    Dick Lewis



MTC-00018891

From: wilbur nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello:
    I wanted to comment on the penalties to be imposed on Microsoft. 
I believe that the negative externalities of the Windows OS are 
extensive and have burdened the public unnecessarily. Had there been 
more competition in the market there would have been an economic 
incentive for Microsoft to make its products easier to configure and 
maintain. The general absence of ease-of-use in the Microsoft 
product lineup has come at a cost of millions of man-hours to our 
nation and the world. The penalties imposed on the Microsoft 
Corporation should focus at least in part on reimbursing the public 
for these losses-this reimbursement should be straightforward, 
originate in the form of monetary compensation from Microsoft, and 
be paid to various public institutions.
    Thank you,
    Wilbur Nelson
    Offcenter Concept House
    280 W. Katmai Ave.
    Soldotna, AK 99669
    Voice: 907.260.6904
    Fax: 907.260.6905



MTC-00018892

From: Brett Presnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    We disagree with the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. We are particularly concerned with provisions that 
do nothing to enable open source (``free'') software to 
compete effectively with Microsoft. We say ``enable'' 
because Microsoft's monopolistic, anticompetitive practices have 
largely prevented not only traditional software businesses but also 
free software from maintaining a viable position in many areas of 
the market. Thus it would be misleading to suggest that anyone's 
ability to compete should be ``protected,'' since there is 
currently little to protect. Some relevant discussion of the effect 
of the settlement on open source software can be found in the 
following documents. We agree strongly with the viewpoints expressed 
in these documents. November 5, 2001 Letter from Ralph Nader and 
James Love to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly regarding the USDOJ/
Microsoft proposed settlement. http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html Robert Cringely column concerning the 
settlement. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html 
Some suggestions from Richard Stallman concerning possible remedies. 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html We will also 
be co-signing the following letter from Dan Kegel: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html Microsoft has been found guilty of 
antitrust violations. To support the public's interest in the 
critically important areas of computing and networking, Microsoft 
must be punished and their monopoly must be dismantled. To quote 
Robert H. Bork, former U.S. Solicitor General and Appellate Judge 
(see http://www.procompetition.org/headlines/120701.html) I continue 
to believe that a

[[Page 26648]]

divestiture of Microsoft would have been the most efficient way to 
restore competition but barring divestiture, the settlement must be 
greatly strengthened to prevent future anticompetitive practices by 
Microsoft and hopefully to reverse at least some of the effects of 
their past and present anticompetitive practices.
    Sincerely,
    Brett Presnell
    1615 NW 14th Avenue
    Gainesville, FL 32605
    James Hobert
    2906 NW 12th Pl
    Gainesville, FL 32605
    Balasubramanian Narasimhan
    4998 Englewood Drive
    San Jose, CA 95129



MTC-00018893

From: Mike Wexler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement doesn't seem to address one of the keys 
issues of their monopoly. The fact that Microsoft owns the API that 
most commercially available software uses. If I want to from 
TurboTax or Finale or any number of commercial programs for PCs. I 
have to buy Microsoft Windows. There are several groups trying to 
create competitive/compatible operating systems: WINE (http://
www.codeweavers.com/home/), Lindoex (http://www.lindows.com), Wind/U 
(http://www.bristol.com/windu/index.html). In order to level the 
playing field for these and other projects. The Final Judgement 
should include the following provisions:
    1. Notify vendors of technical requirements in advance.
    Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of competing 
middleware to meet ``reasonable technical requirements'' 
seven months before new releases of Windows, yet it does not require 
Microsoft to disclose those requirements in advance. This allows 
Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by changing the 
requirements shortly before the deadline, and not informing ISVs.
    2. Release API documentation ealier.
    Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN 
or similar means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft 
Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be 
required at the time of the final beta test of the covered 
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be 
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their 
products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which states 
that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet 
unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final 
beta test of a new version of Windows.
    3. Document all important APIs.
    The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' and ``API'' means that Section 
III.D.'s requirement to release information about Windows interfaces 
would not cover many important interfaces.
    4. Remove Restrictions on the Use of the Released Documentation
    ISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in Findings 
of Fact (?52) sometimes have difficulty understanding various 
undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under section 
III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs-except that the PFJ 
disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid running 
afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their engineers into 
two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on Windows-only 
applications; and those who cannot refer to MSDN because they work 
on applications which also run on non-Microsoft operating systems. 
This would constitute retaliation against ISVs who support competing 
operating systems. If we are truely trying to create a competitive 
environment. Why not have them release the windows API documentation 
as freely available etext. So that anybody trying to create 
compatible operating systems has free access to the specifications. 
Note, they would still need to implement the APIs. This just means 
the specifications would be publish. It should be required that 
these specifications be in enough detail to run all of Microsoft's 
products and the top 100 non-microsoft commercial applications.
    5. Fully Document File Formats
    No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see 
``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39).
    6. Document protocols.
    The protocols used to communicate between clients and servers 
should be fully documented. So that applications from diverse 
environments can interoperate with microsoft clients and servers. 
This would keep Microsoft from leveraging monopoly in one 
environment (desktop OS, Browser) to other environments (Server OS, 
Web Server).
    7. Disclose which patents covering the Windows APIs.
    Section III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to license 
certain intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to require 
Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software patents 
protect the Windows APIs (perhaps in the style proposed by the W3C; 
see http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/#sec-
disclosure). This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in an 
uncertain state: are they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft 
software patents? This can scare away potential users, as 
illustrated by this report from Codeweavers, Inc.:
    When selecting a method of porting a major application to Linux, 
one prospect of mine was comparing Wine [a competing implementation 
of some of the Windows APIs] and a toolkit called 
``MainWin''. MainWin is made by Mainsoft, and Mainsoft 
licenses its software from Microsoft. However, this customer elected 
to go with the Mainsoft option instead. I was told that one of the 
key decision making factors was that Mainsoft representatives had 
stated that Microsoft had certain critical patents that Wine was 
violating. My customer could not risk crossing Microsoft, and 
declined to use Wine. I didn't even have a chance to determine which 
patents were supposedly violated; nor to disprove the validity of 
this claim.
    The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal situation to continue, 
is inhibiting the market acceptance of competing operating systems.



MTC-00018894

From: Kent Zhang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am writing to you to show you my support for breaking MS into 
two parts for the following reasons:
    1. It is a good way to stop MS to kill competitions in computer 
industry. MS is a monopoly and has been killing new innovations. 
They have been using MS OS for PC to push their own products and to 
kill other products. Netscape is one of them. There will be more and 
more products to be killed by MS.
    2. MS claims that their product is better. Because of their 
monopoly and powerful marketing and financial system, no other 
competitors can survive and produce better products. For example, MS 
word is the only word process people are using now. It can be 
better. However, MS is not in the hurry to improve it.
    3. Once MS is broken into two parts. They have to compete harder 
and better products will be produced.
    Thank you
    Kent Zhang



MTC-00018895

From: Nathan Woods Currier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I am complaining about the final judgement 
against Microsoft. Among its more serious problems:
    -There is no enforcement mechanism except further slogging 
through the courts, which will take many years. In the meantime, 
Microsoft will continue its anticompetitive practices.
    -The judgement allows Microsoft to retaliate against small 
OEMs who ship computers without Microsoft operating systems.
    -Competitors are prohibited from making Windows-compatible 
operating systems.
    -The judgement allows use of licensing terms which would 
prohibit running Microsoft and open-source software together at the 
same time This judgement is basically a sellout to Bill Gates. If 
passed, the government would effectively be using its legal force to 
prop up Microsoft's monopoly, instead of encouraging competition (as 
is the stated purpose of the judgement).



MTC-00018896

From: Joshua J.Kugler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my belief that Microsoft has violated the laws of the 
United States and has done everything in its power to crush and 
disable

[[Page 26649]]

its competition. I would like to see Microsoft broken up and/or more 
closely regulated.
    Joshua Kugler, Information Services Director
    Associated Students of the University of Alaska Fairbanks



MTC-00018897

From: emwkm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I'm certainly glad that the current Govt. were not in charge 
when Henry Ford was inventing his car or we would be still riding in 
buggies. Leave Microsoft alone and tend to some real govt.



MTC-00018898

From: Joseph Pietro Riolo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As a computer programmer for more than 15 years, I am very 
concerned with the proposed Microsoft settlement. It still allows 
Microsoft to block software developers from creating programs that 
can run on Windows-compatible operating systems other than Microsoft 
Windows. Your settlement must forbid Microsoft from limiting the new 
applications to its only operating system. Your meaning of API is 
narrow meaning that Microsoft does not have to release documentation 
about all APIs between applications and operating system. Your 
settlement must be modified to expand the meaning of API to include 
all interfaces between operating system and applications.
    I am puzzled at why your settlement does not allow the software 
developers to use the API documentation to create a new operating 
system so that the products from Microsoft can run on it. What is 
good about your settlement if no one can write a new operating 
system that is compatible with Windows-related products?
    Your settlement must require Microsoft to identify which of the 
Windows APIs are covered by its patents. How can your current 
settlement be helpful if Microsoft keeps the software developers 
guessing which API is covered by which patent?
    Joseph Pietro Riolo
    R.R. #3, Box 3198 Cranberry Road
    East Stroudsburg, PA 18301-9518



MTC-00018899

From: Edwards, Aaron
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has had a 
strangle hold on the computing environment for way too long and the 
proposed settlement will do nothing to inihbit Microsoft from 
continuing on it's anti-competition campaign. Please reconsider the 
``punishment'' proposed. The original proposal of a 
company split was the most favorable option I have seen so far.
    Thank you.
    Aaron Edwards



MTC-00018900

From: Fernando Jimenez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Quite frankly, I think I've seen enough of microsoft's 
monopolistic and competition bashing activities. They deserve some 
kind of punishment. Money would probably not be punishment, since 
they can recover that. However, something serious, like prohibition 
of bundling explorer or msn messenger with windows. Now that would 
restore proper competition. Let the users choose what the want, 
instead of stuffing them with their own software to kill 
competition.
    THanks



MTC-00018901

From: Daniel J. Cragg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft does not go 
far enough. They should not get a free ride just because the judge 
said some things which lead some to question his impartiality. I am 
a conservative and usually against most anti-trust cases, but I 
believe that Microsoft has too much power. They are bullies. They 
steal good ideas from every other company in the industry, make an 
inferior version, and then use their power to eliminate the 
originators of the idea and force consumers to buy their inferior 
goods. If Microsoft is not weakened severely, they will continue to 
infect every aspect of the technological industry and bully the 
competition out of the market. Breaking up Microsoft's empire is 
imperative to the health of the tech industry, and 
therefore-the economy. Please do not group this case in with 
the rest of the trash from the Clinton Administration and Reno 
Justice Department. Go at them full bore.
    Thank you,
    Daniel J. Cragg
    943 Wild Rose Court
    St. Paul, MN 55123



MTC-00018902

From: Tom Wilcox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the recent proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. For several reasons, I feel the current 
settlement is insufficient, and will in fact stiffle competition 
further. However, the only aspect I will comment directly is on the 
non-disclosure of file formats by Microsoft. By not forcing 
Microsoft to disclose their file formats, the PFJ will maintain a 
very high barrier to entry into markets currently dominated by 
Microsoft. The reason is simple: people today exchange documents 
among computers every day, and if you don't have the MS 
applications, most likely you won't be able to read said documents. 
If the file formats are open, then any ISV can write an application 
to read and/or modify documents produced using MS software. This 
would, in effect, make competition based on the quality of software, 
independent of market dominance.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Tom Wilcox
    Integrative Biology C0930
    University of Texas
    Austin, TX 78712
    ph: 512-232-6283
    fax: 512-471-3878



MTC-00018903

From: Don Gillaspie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Until Microsoft is broken into at least two parts there can be 
no affective competition in any software Microsoft sells.



MTC-00018904

From: Ian Billington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree with the proposed settlment with MicroSoft.
    Ian M. Billington
    Ester, AK 99725



MTC-00018905

From: Matthew G. Shafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. After reviewing the proposal, it is 
my belief that it is insufficient to curtail Microsoft's unethical 
business practices which are hurting the computer industry. One 
particular change I recommend is that Microsoft be required to 
publicly release the Internet documentation for all of it's API's 
and file formats, such as those used by Microsoft Office. This would 
allow competitors to create software that is compatible with 
Microsoft's.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew G. Shafer
    Student



MTC-00018906

From: Fabricating Machinery Corp.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my great disappointment in the ineffectual settlement of 
the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft has 
demonstrated it's tactics of bullying and coercion in every business 
field that it has enter. The operating system market, the office 
suite market, the Internet browser market, the Internet service 
provider market, and if past history is any indication, the 
multimedia and gaming markets as well will fall victim. Why do we 
have laws for matters of antitrust if the Department of Justice is 
not going to see them through and take appropriate legal action? The 
settlement terms are both ambiguous, and thereby easy to navigate 
around, and the stand to offer Microsoft a better market position. 
If corrective action is not taken,

[[Page 26650]]

soon we will may very well have no choice but to use whatever 
Microsoft decides we will using, and pay obscenely high prices for 
it. As a United States citizen, a taxpayer and a voter, I am direly 
concerned that all the time and taxpayer expense in regards to 
United States vs. Microsoft will have been for the EXCLUSIVE benefit 
of Microsoft and it's stockholders. That's not justice, that's 
collusion.
    Sincerely,
    David W. Bradford



MTC-00018907

From: Joseph Lazzaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a system administrator and programmer for a small web-related 
company, I am very concerned that the proposed Microsoft settlement 
will prove ineffective in preventing the monopolistic behavior that 
has hindered the growth of viable Microsoft alternatives. 
Furthermore, I believe that it will in fact help to further 
Microsoft's unfair dominance of the operating system and PC 
applications market. Of particular concern is any plan that would 
have Microsoft place Microsoft-based computer systems and software 
in schools. While I agree that our schools require attention in this 
regard, I feel that this will a) not punish Microsoft for their 
proven illegal behavior as it is of no real cost to them (the 
software, once written, incurs no cost to distribute), and b) 
enforce Microsoft's dominance by training future generations in a 
Microsoft-centric manner, as students would not see and appreciate 
alternatives.
    Another concern is that by not breaking up Microsoft into an 
Operating System arm and an Applications arm, APIs remain closed and 
the opportunity for competitive, interoperable software is greatly 
hindered. This will allow Microsoft to continue to extort the public 
with forced upgrades to read arbitrarily changed file formats. The 
consumer public is, in a very real sense, held hostage by the hold 
that Microsoft has on these APIs. I have seen the damage the 
Microsoft Monopoly has caused first hand in my field of work, but it 
is my hope that with the continued perseverance of the Department of 
Justice in the rightful prosecution of this criminal behavior, some 
relief is attainable.
    Thank you.
    Joseph Lazzaro



MTC-00018908

From: Smith, Jeremy-Geek
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are many problems I see that the proposed settlement does 
not cover that I believe are of the utmost importance. I would like 
to point out one that has plagued me. I develop software for 
internal use for Case Western Reserve University's School of 
Management. I enjoy using the Microsoft product Visual C++. However, 
I am prevented from doing so because of the End User License 
Agreement for Visual C++. In the EULA, it states: ``You may 
reproduce and distribute ... the Redistributable Components... 
provided that (a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only 
in conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product'' Therefore, I cannot 
use it because I am forced into only deploying the software on MS 
operating systems and the faculty, staff, and students who use non-
MS operating systems (MacOS X, MacOS 9.x, a Linux distribution, a 
BSD distribution, etc.) would not be able to use it. Additionally, 
there are other clauses in MS's EULA's like the one in Frontpage 
(the web site editor) that disallows you from using it if you create 
web sites that may say negative notions about Microsoft. And, then, 
of course, there are all the 3rd party software vendors who depend 
on interoperability with Windows-these vendors need more open 
API's to compete with their MS competitive counterparts. I just hope 
that everything undergoes a more thorough review before a settlement 
is reached. A review that involved a heavy edit to the current 
proposed settlement.
    Thank You,
    Jeremy Smith
    Application Developer
    IT GroupPGP Fingerprint: Weatherhead School of Management4B34 
3999 B427 06AC E28A
    Case Western Reserve E9DA 66B2 32A5 98EF F82B



MTC-00018909

From: Andrew Ettinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a software developer and a senior in Computer and 
Information Science program at the University of Oregon. Laissez-
faire economics works in many other industries, but not in 
computing. Computers, being precise machines, allow vendors to 
``close'' their standards, and without being able to 
reverse-engineer anymore, settling the Microsoft case in the 
proposed manner is a horrible idea. They have a long history of 
stifling development with software that is easily cracked, bullying 
opponents, and overcharging for their services via closed standards 
and overt political practices. Please don't allow them to continue 
for the sake of our industry. Everyone can play together, work 
together, and play and work fairly and still make money and provide 
great service. Their practices are underhanded and should be 
punished. But fundamentally, the government needs to realize that 
open computing standards are what creates a laissez-faire computing 
industry, which is what is best for the developers and the consumer.
    Thank you,
    John Andrew Ettinger
    1884 Alder St. #2
    Eugene, Oregon 97401
    541.684.8306



MTC-00018910

From: Charles Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to cast my vote against the proposed settlement. It 
is entirely too lax and makes it too easy for Microsoft to lock out 
competition without any fear of retribution. A number of changes 
should be made to the settlement in order for it to have the desired 
effect (i.e., the prevention or at least dampening of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices). An extensive analysis of the proposed 
judgement's weaknesses can be found in the essay, ``On the 
Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft'' by Dan 
Kegel, located at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html, along 
with proposed alterations to strengthen its effect. I fully support 
these propositions and hope they are incorporated into the final 
judgement.
    Thank you for your time,
    Charles Wood
    649 EN 18th #6
    Abilene, TX, USA



MTC-00018911

From: Bryan Dumm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the seattlement. The seattlement is like painting 
Microsoft's logos on the 50 yard line.
    Bryan



MTC-00018912

From: Greg Page
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft must be stopped



MTC-00018913

From: Steve Panasuk
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an example; if I had built a car wash, and right next door a 
large oil company built a convenience store selling gas and a car 
wash in back, and then started giving away car washes, no one could 
stay in business with that type of competition. They could run 
anyone out of business. I think there is case law where companies 
have to charge for a service like this. This is the same with 
Microsoft. By allowing them to add programs and give them away, 
where is the incentive to get into the software business. I think 
this is unfair, anticompetitive, anti-innovation, and more 
importantly, unlawful. Improve your product, fine, how about adding 
stability and security.
    But to add a browser, why? Why didn't they add a personal 
accounting program, or give away a spreadsheet program. Because they 
were out to destroy another company, not improve their product. The 
ruling is 7 to 0, and that has to have some weight to do something 
substantial.
    Thanks for this forum,
    Respectfully submitted,
    Steve Panasuk



MTC-00018914

From: Thomas Hammell
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:03pm

[[Page 26651]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a terrible idea. It's become 
clear from the misinformed acts of the U.S. patent office and now 
the court system that the U.S. government is losing its handle on 
the realities of business and competition in the current digital 
world. It's too late to be proactive, but there's still a chance to 
fix our course.
    Tom Hammell



MTC-00018915

From: Grant W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I write to tell you how important it is to find a better 
agreement on the Microsoft Settlement. I feel the proposed solution 
is much too lenient. Though the courts have determined that 
Microsoft performed anti-trust actions in the browser field, the 
decision has little weight. The Microsoft browser is used by over 
80% of the marketplace-the competition can never be restored. 
I suggest that the DoJ solution realize the conclusion that allowing 
the software giant to remain as one unit will forever give them the 
ability to lock out the competition. All companies must use 
Microsoft's product for an operating system. Microsoft is also their 
biggest competitor. This is a conflict of interest, which you have 
the opportunity to rectify. Please ensure Microsoft releases 
operating code to public-domain at the same time they release to 
their other product line sections. History has shown this to be a 
very effective way for them to remain ahead of their competition.
    Best Regards,
    Grant Willison



MTC-00018916

From: Steven Fell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Please Read)
    Hello-I would like to take some of my valuable time and 
write to you. I say valuable in that we all only have 24 hours in 
our day in which to work (eg. Provide for our families), Live (spend 
quality time with our families & friends), and rest (so we can 
do the first two above. Work by far takes up a majority of our lives 
these days especially in the current economic situation we are 
facing. We are also all more conscious of our time this days since 
the 9/11/2001 tragedies that took thousands of lives in a matter of 
seconds.
    This country has been based on hard work on innovation, not LAW 
SUITS. I believe 100% in the value of the Department of Justice to 
look out for `consumers' NOT `companies'. 
Microsoft (more than any other in the technology industry, has 
brought value to `Consumers' and companies. I'm not an 
attorney and don't know the specific details on the Anti-Trust laws 
but when I read in the paper that AOL/Netscape are courting states 
to continue this lawsuit (eg. Not spending resources on innovating 
products and services for consumers...) is absolutely appalling and 
wrong.
    Please focus the remainder of this case on doing what 100% right 
for consumers, not padding the pockets of companies that would 
rather spend valuable resources courting states to sue rather than 
innovate their products for the good of consumers and our country. 
Please write back and let me know that someone human read this.
    Thank you.
    Steven Fell
    Lead Program Manager, Technical Diplomacy
    Platform Strategy Group
    Microsoft Corporation
    425-706-8509 wk
    206-601-7129 cell



MTC-00018917

From: Neil Drumm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    -Neil Drumm



MTC-00018918

From: Fong Vang
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Since Microsoft 
has been proving guilty of illegal monopolistic practices, the 
punishment must be more severe. The settlement essentially lets 
Microsoft get away with the crimes it has committed. Furthermore, 
stronger restraint must be put in place to prevent Microsoft from 
abusing its power again. I sincerely hope the DOJ will not let 
Microsoft get away with it relatively free.
    -Fong Vang
    Systems Engineer
    Pleasanton, California



MTC-00018919

From: Ian Byers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The problem is that Microsoft controls the medium as well as 
having a large hand in the media. This gives them an unfair 
advantage when producing media for their medium. To rectify this, 
they should have to disclose *everything* about their protocols and 
technology that others could use. If they are going to use aspects 
of their operating system for their applications, then their 
competitors should have the same access to those aspects.
    Also, regarding the donation to schools: isn't it a little odd 
that the attempted punishment it actually rewarding Microsoft in the 
long run?
    Ian Byers
    (604) 637-0200 ext. 113



MTC-00018920

From: Not(u)a(u)valid(u)name No(u)way
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams,
    From what I understand of the proposed solution, I am opposed to 
it. The proposed solution is not in the public interest. It doesn't 
seem to stop Microsoft from using it's monopoly to extend into other 
areas nor does it seem to actually prevent them from continuing as 
they have been. There appear to be enough loopholes to avoid 
Microsoft actually changing their business practices, which is the 
intent of the proposed solution. In that regard, the proposed 
solution would and should be considered a failure and should be 
replaced with real remedies and real pain for Microsoft if they 
break those remedies.
    Sincerely,
    Terry Ackman
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.



MTC-00018921

From: David S. ``Greeny'' Greenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to register my opposition to the PFJ as I firmly 
believe that it will do nothing to promote competition. Indeed I 
believe that the PFJ will serve to restrict innovation and 
competition. The PFJ will end up costing consumers money and 
choices. The PFJ amounts to a mere slap on the wrist. Microsoft 
should be severely fined and restricted for what they have done, or 
they will not stop in the future.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    David S. Greenberg
    PO Box 307
    Highland Park, IL 60035



MTC-00018922

From: John Wilkerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement is bad. Microsoft needs to 
have a significant monetary fine levied against it. Allowing them to 
donate software to public schools gives them even greater market 
penetration. The punishment needs to be in the form of something 
that penalizes Microsoft, not helps them. Their monoplolistic hold 
on the PC desktop needs to end now. Free choice is always good for 
consumers and really creates innovation. Microsoft is not innovative 
and is downright deceptive. I would not like to see Microsoft go 
away as a company, I would like to see the competition have a level 
playing field and better opportunities to enter the market.
    Sincerely,
    John Wilkerson
    Southfield, Michigan



MTC-00018923

From: Rich Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    SUCKS.
    RC



MTC-00018924

From: Tom 7
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlment is not strong enough to 
prevent Microsoft from engaging in future non-competitive behavior.

[[Page 26652]]

    Tom Murphy
    Pittsburgh, PA



MTC-00018925

From: Katherine Holcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case in 
its current form. The settlement falls far short of what will be 
required to ``level the playing field'' in the personal-
computer software industry, particularly in the realm of operating 
systems. For example, the requirement that Microsoft disclose its 
operating-system application programming interfaces must have more 
teeth and a more effective enforcement mechanism before any 
competing system such as Linux will have a fair competetive 
opportunity. Microsoft should also not be allowed to hide behind 
``security'' to keep its APIs secret; an independent 
reviewer should be empowered to determine what is a legitimate 
security concern and what is stonewalling.
    Thank you very much,
    Katherine Holcomb
    Linux user



MTC-00018926

From: Timothy John Webb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I truly believe that Microsoft is manipulating the government 
and trying to get the most beneficial settlement they can get. They 
no doubt have a monopoly and will do everything in their power to 
keep it that way. Personal computer users at home especially have no 
choice but to buy Microsoft products, and when Microsoft chooses to 
not support their version, they are forced to upgrade, costing 
hundreds of dollars to you regular Amercian citizen. On top of that, 
each new distrbution of Microsoft products, especially the windowing 
environment unfairly called Windows, is more bulky and buggy than 
the previous release. If a user is satisfied with their current 
software, they should not be forced to upgrade to something more 
resource demanding. This creates a need to upgrade the hardware so 
that the programs may run more smoothly with the additional unwanted 
features that take up valuable space. As long as MS holds their 
monoploly, all major releases of software will either be strictly 
Windows 98/2000/NT/XP and, if lucky, a realease for Apple computers 
as well. Be informed, though, that Apple is much different from MS 
and should not be considered something that voids the Monopoly. 
Apple makes their hardware and software specific for each other. If 
a consumer buys an iMac, they also get the Mac operating system. 
Typically Apple products and MS products are not interchangeable. 
For an IBM-compatable computer, the choices are: Microsoft Products, 
and Microsoft Approved Products. As a consumer, I hate to be locked 
into the Microsoft cycle. It is not an easy task to eliminate 
Microsoft products from my computer. If I do, I lose the 
``priveledge'' to 99.99% of all distributed software. I 
walk into my local retail store and can not find a single program 
that does not say that it REQUIRES MS Windows 98/2000/NT/XP. Notice 
that this no longer includes Windows 95. This means all the 
consumers who are happy with 95, some of whom I know, MUST upgrade 
if they want to run the latest software. And MS upgrades are not 
free, and not cheap. Bottom line is that if the Goverment says you 
have a monopoly, you must split. Or you must cease these unfair 
business practices and do such and such to fix the existing 
repricussions, MS should follow without whining. Instead, they carry 
it out as long as possible, pull every string they can, put in 
conditions that will help them more than hurt them, and insist on 
their conditions. Justice must prevail, DO NOT give the citizens of 
this country, dedicated to freedom, the perception that the judicial 
system will bend over backwards for billionaires. Where is our 
freedom of choice for computer products?



MTC-00018927

From: Scot Close
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I believe that the misleading and overly 
narrow definitions in the proposed settlement will severely reduce 
its effectiveness.
    Scot Close
    Santa Cruz, CA



MTC-00018928

From: Lee Clontz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: It's time for this case to end. 
Microsoft is clearly not a monopoly (there are several alternatives, 
some free, some more expensive) and companies like Netscape which 
have fallen on hard times have done so of their own accord. To wit, 
Netscape didn't release a single browser product for upwards of 
nearly four years... to compete, you actually have to compete! AOL 
doesn't even use Netscape-which they own-in their own 
products. The software industry is the most dynamic, fast-moving, 
innovative industry in the world, from where I sit. Yes, Microsoft 
is the big dog, but there are several alternatives (Linux, 
Macintosh) that shouldn't get a leg up just because Microsoft has 
been more successful. Please end this trial now, and let the markets 
decide. Good ideas will win out, and it's not the government's job 
to help those who can't keep up. I was not asked nor paid by 
Microsoft to send this message-just a concerned taxpayer.
    Thank you,
    - Lee Clontz
    1417 Tuxworth Circle
    Decatur, Ga. 30033



MTC-00018930

From: Matthew Wight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    KILL MS THEY WILL TAKE OVER THE PC MARKET WITH THE XBOX!!!! THEY 
ALLREADY HAVE INTERGRATED ALMOST PEICE OF SOFTWARE IMAGINABLE INTO 
THER OS!!!! SHOOT THEM DOWN!!!! I HATE MS!!!!!!!!!!



MTC-00018932

From: root
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sell-outs......when Microsoft can charge $299 dollars for 
the ``most-secure OS to date from Microsoft'', that has 
more holes than all of the other non-microsoft OS's combined, and 
you let them off with a settlement that won't even effect the 
liscence agreement or the price that they force on the average John 
Doe, it serves to only reaffirm how easily justice is bought and 
sold in this day and age.



MTC-00018934

From: Sean Harre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    doj:
    i do not support the current legislation against 
microsoft-i think it falls short of actually stopping their 
monopoly in many areas and will not truely open their interface to 
competing companies, one example: No part of the PFJ obligates 
Microsoft to release any information about file formats, even though 
undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications 
Barrier to Entry (see ``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39). 
i urge you to please reconsider this point. thank you for your time,
    Sean Harre 303-583-5374
    `Spectral.ink, Boulder CO



MTC-00018959

From: David Turcaso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must say that the proposed settlement is not a good one, in 
general because the proposed remedy is clumsy, unworkable, and 
liable to lead to further litigation when problems crop up. In 
addition, I believe many of the details of the proposal, especially 
the provisions concerning disclosure and licensing to commercial 
businesses only, will have a devastating effect on open-source 
projects that interact with Microsoft products. This can only lead 
to strengthening Microsoft's market position, and allowing them to 
benefit from their monopoly. I urge you to reject the proposed 
settlement, and to re-open the idea of separating Microsoft into two 
or more companies as a simpler, fairer remedy.
    David Turcaso
    1411 NE 16th Ave #212
    Portland, OR 97232



MTC-00018960

From: James K. Wing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26653]]

    Dear Ms. Hesse: As a public citizen, I wish to express the 
opinion that this civil anti-trust case against Microsoft should be 
settled according to the terms of the agreement set forth by the 
high Federal court as quickly as possible. Microsoft is a leading 
technology company whose products are socially beneficial towards 
educational institutions and helping the underprivileged to improve 
their cognitive skills. Their pioneering role directly impacts the 
American technology business sector and the U.S. economy positively, 
in the spirit of ``laissez-faire'' capitalism. Settle now. 
Thank you. James
    Wing



MTC-00018961

From: Ron Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a IT professional and concerned voter who is opposed to the 
Microsoft settlement because it does not adequately compensate the 
people and businesses of the US nor is it strict enough to prevent 
further uncompetitive behaviour.
    Ron Smith
    Systems Manager
    TLR & Associates



MTC-00018962

From: Chris Seager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am against the current terms of the settlement. I think 
Microsoft must be placed under much greater control and pay a heavy 
price for their past conduct. Competition to the market must be 
restored. In past cases Microsoft have demonstrated that they will 
weasel around court orders and wring every possible leverage from 
every possible bolthole in any agreement. They have shown they 
intend to ignore any court remedies.
    Competition and true Innovation is being restricted by 
Microsoft. Conditions will only improve if Microsoft is placed under 
draconian restrictions and by imposing penalties which actually 
hurt. Controls must be applied which assume every one of their 
actions is anti competitive, unless it can be demonstrated not to be 
the case.
    Thank you for allowing me to record my comments.
    Chris Seager.
    Self employed I.T. Consultant.
    Living in the U.K.



MTC-00018963

From: Scott Underwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a terrible Idea.
    Scott Underwood
    ``... challenging authority and insisting that it justify 
itself-are appropriate at all levels.''
    -Noam Chomsky



MTC-00018964

From: Todd Papaleo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The way Microsoft is imposing its Passport strategy on consumers 
is not only audacious, but unwelcome. I am a Macintosh user, and I 
frequently exercise my choice to not use Microsoft products because 
of several reasons:
    They're not necessarily the best, in that they're often burdened 
with a cumbersome and cryptic interface.
    They presume too much (under the guise of assisting the user) 
about the work I want to accomplish, resulting in wasted time 
dealing with tedious streams of dialogue boxes and 
``wizards''.
    They, in short, dictate how I should interface with my machine 
to do my work, because they have a prescribed plan,a nd anyone or 
anything that doesn't figure in is deemed irrelevant.
    It became painfully apparent that there is no escaping 
Microsoft's .NET startegy when I logged on to their Mac product 
website to download a trial version of Office v.X for Mac OS X. I 
was required to create a Passport identity in order to download it. 
Other users are forced to adopt a Passport identity when registering 
the full product. If they choose not to, they don't receive the 
benefits of registration.
    This is like saying, ``You can run, but you can't hide. And 
if you run, you'll just die tired. We'll get you.'' I don't 
like the fact that even though I am actively avoiding using their 
products and services, I run into them sooner or later. I now know 
that if I ever want to use Office X, my Passport will be more 
important than my actual purchase of the product. I do have a 
Passport, but I got it two years ago when it made sense to have a 
Hotmail account. Now, this once innocuous mail service is part of a 
grander scheme to control my work and my life.
    Microsoft consistently imposes their technology on the rest of 
the world, casting international standards to the wind, under the 
pretense of making technology better. In actuality, they are 
assuring their role in the world of technology by instituting new 
web protocols that fuel their dissemination of the Explorer browser, 
and the technologies they build into it ``for a better user 
experience''. This is but ONE example.
    Other companies diligently adhere to international standards of 
technology in order to make the best products they can. But when a 
new version or service pack of Windows throws the world a curve 
ball, they are all forced to catch up or face the consequences. I 
work on PCs at work, and my computing experience is usually horrible 
to fair on any given day, generally because of security holes and 
malfunctioning Microsoft products that do not allow the average 
reasonable user enough latitude to know what they're doing or how to 
remedy a potentially disastrous situation.
    Instead of adding features to ensure a ``better user 
experience'' (as opposed to a sharp stick in the eye), they 
ought to concentrate on making a secure and usable product where I 
don't need a MSCE certificate to set up my mail. I'm surprised that 
the world has not brought a class-action suit against them for all 
the pain, suffering and financial catastrophes that have resulted 
from them not crossing their t's and dotting their I's when they're 
putting out an operating system. Their reasoning must be it's better 
to get people's money now, and promise to issue a patch whenever 
some hacker exposes a blatant security flaw.
    If they want 95% of the world, the least they could do is make 
it so their stuff works as advertised, and doesn't shower the people 
with promises of a better this and more exciting that. They have 
great responsibility to us, they are supposed to make it so we want 
to use their product.
    The reality is we're forced to if we want to be in business, and 
even then our business transactions are constantly at risk because 
of their lackadaisical approach to security.
    The sole purpose of Microsoft is to make money on anythng that 
they become involved with, including internet and computer 
companies. I don't want them to go away, I just want them to play 
fair and compete on their own strengths instead of turnignthe tables 
every 6 months.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Papaleo



MTC-00018988

From: James Forrester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:08pm
Subject: Dear Sir / Madam,
    Dear Sir / Madam,
    I am a senior software engineer at a financial company. 
Microsoft's retail business practices notwithstanding, their 
integration of new features and functionality in to their software 
has helped this company deliver a highly profitable web product 
which has weathered current economic conditions and has created many 
jobs. The time-to-market that is achievable with their software is 
second to none, and their .Net initiative is giving developers of 
all backgrounds an equal playing field in which to ply their trade- 
developers who may otherwise have found their positions 
marginalised. These low barriers to entry have unsurprisingly 
created an environment where competitors struggle to compete, but in 
closing let me say this: Microsoft's illegal activities represent 
one sphere of their operations; one which must now clearly face 
remedies to its sales and marketing practices. However the Microsoft 
that millions of developers deal with evey day is innovative, 
responsive, and exciting. Any remedy adversely affecting that 
portion of the compay would harm those members of the public- the 
software architects, trainers, trainees, managers, developers, 
administrators and consultants- who have worked so hard to 
make their companies the very best at what they do, using Microsoft 
software.
    Best regards,
    James Forrester



MTC-00018990

From: Kip Manley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a very bad idea; the least of all 
possible remedies for the harm Microsoft has indisputably caused. 
Given Enron, it seems foolish to continue to support

[[Page 26654]]

large, bloated businesses at the expense of true little-guy 
innovation-that this settlement does precisely that is a 
stinging refutation of the American Dream.
    -Kip Manley
    ``Ma gavte la nata.''



MTC-00018991

From: Ron or Cecelia Oxford
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 1/23/02 6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear D.O.J.,
    As a concerned citizen, investor, and stock holder of not only 
Microsoft, but other companies, I am fed up with this continual 
legal battle against Microsoft.
    In the first place, it is my opinion that every company has a 
right and obligation to it's employees, stock holders and the 
consumer to produce the best possible products. Complete with new 
inovation. Every company in the world strives for market dominance, 
including AOL and Sun Microsystems. The facts are that Microsoft got 
the job done and now those cry babies are attempting to use every 
sleazy ``legal'' means at their disposal to attempt to 
gain what they couldn't in fair business. In my opinion, it is not 
the governments business to interfere with business and as such this 
trial is a travesty of justice. It should be done such that, let 
each of these ``poor abused'' companies bring civil suit, 
provided that they can show beyond any doubt that they have been 
wronged and not just a victim of their own weak business practices. 
This whole mess reminds me of small children who, when loosing a 
game, runs to tell Daddy the others are cheating. As a consumer, I 
applaud Microsoft for putting together a truly integrated operating 
system. One where all of the components are integrated to work 
together, eliminating the finger pointing of days gone by in the 
software industry. I have tried Netscape and found it lacking, I 
prefer Microsoft's browser. I had AOL as my internet provider, but 
since it wasn't compatible with some of the online programs (non 
Microsoft) I use, I made a conscious decision to change. Therefor, 
these companies claim that Microsoft has harmed the consumer is a 
large load of malarky. I, like every other consumer, had the 
opportunity to use Netscape and AOL, but chose not to. I wasn't 
forced to use Microsoft, I simply found it to be better than the 
competition. They harmed themselves and the consumers by not 
providing appropriate software that fit the needs of all consumers, 
not just their narrow band of selected few. My heart bleeds for them 
that they've lost market share. TOUGH, that's business. If they 
can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
    As an investor, I am enraged that this mess has been allowed to 
continue. It is no secret that Microsoft's ups and downs fairly well 
dictate the ups and downs of Wall Street and the stock markets. In 
these times of economic uncertainty, let's call it by it's real 
name--RECESSION, what consumers, investors and the 
everyday working people do not need is some more downturn of the 
stock markets. I believe it can fairly be stated that anyone who had 
investements in the stock market after March of 1999 has lost and 
lost big. In my own case, I lost well over 50% of my retirement 
funds. I guess I should sue somebody to recover what I've lost too, 
Huh. One of the major catalysts of that crash was the beginning of 
this legal battle between the DOJ and Microsoft. Further dragging it 
down was the cyclical weakening of the general economy and then add 
to it a period of uncertainty over who was the President. Now add 
Sept. 11. Isn't it time to get off Microsofts back and let the 
economy recover. I say it is!!!! In my opinion, Microsoft has made a 
much larger offer to settle than I would have considered fair, but 
still the crybabies of the world will not be satisfied unless 
Microsoft is ruined and completely gone. The question then is, who 
will they blame for their own mismanagement when again they fail and 
someone else is King of the Internet? So, tell me, WHO has harmed 
the citizens of this country, I give you AOL, Sun Micro. and the 
States Attorneys General, that's who. Therefor, I emplore you to put 
an end to this nonsense and let the country get on with trying to 
recover.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Oxford
    19128 SE 63rd PL
    Issaquah, WA 98027
    (425)643-1172



MTC-00018992

From: Brian Pepper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    This letter's purpose is to comment as allowed under the Tunney 
Act upon the proposed final judgement in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case. If I have sent it to the wrong address or it reaches you in 
error, please forward it to the proper address.
    I disagree with this proposed settlement. As an open-source 
programmer, I am especially disheartened by the leniency with which 
Microsoft gets off in terms of releasing information on their APIs. 
This settlement is unacceptable, because it doesn't even require 
that they say which are patented! This is a nightmare to anyone 
creating a competing implementation, because they don't know what 
they can and cannot emulate. At the very least, the settlement must 
be modified to force full disclosure of the patents.
    Further, it doesn't require full disclosure of their APIs! 
(Definition K defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' to 
mean, in short, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Java, Windows Media 
Player, Windows Messenger, and Outlook Express.) This is, again, 
unacceptable. Take a person creating a game on Windows to compete 
with any of Microsoft's. By allowing Microsoft to keep some of their 
DirectX APIs secret, the potential competitor is forced to use only 
the functions Microsoft chooses to release. What if Microsoft kept 
certain functions to themselves that were faster or better than 
those they released? The competitor's game is locked into being of 
lower quality. I would support full disclosure of every API 
Microsoft has created, in a simple and easily understood format. 
Further, many of their simpler APIs, such as Windows Messenger and 
Windows Media Player, should also be disclosed in source code.
    I hope my comments will be useful to you, and I hope you will 
reconsider what is a very poor settlement. As a citizen, I feel this 
current settlement is little more than a slap on the wrist to a 
company that has done real wrong, and has hurt both its competition 
and its consumers. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Pepper



MTC-00018993

From: Dave Owen (Los Angeles)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will be brief, as I assume you receive thousands of letters on 
this subject per day.
    Microsoft has, at various times:
    -eliminated OS competition (DR-DOS, BeOS)
    -eliminated Software competition (Netscape)
    It has done this not by creating a better product for a fair 
price, which would be applauded by myself and many others. It has 
done this by using its'' position as a very large, very 
powerful monopoly to create licensing impediments, create artificial 
technical incompatibilities, and give away free products until 
competition was eliminated. Licensing impediments: BeOS, an 
extremely viable desktop OS for the x86 platform, could not be pre-
installed on x86 computers by vendors on their OEM products. Why? 
Microsoft's OS licensing agreements with these companies forbade it. 
With Windows as the dominant platform, OEMs could not afford to ship 
x86 computers without Windows. Licensing impediments: Netscape, a 
pioneer in the browser market, could not be pre-installed on x86 
computers by vendors on their OEM products. Why? Mircosoft's OS 
licensing agreements with these companies forbade it. With Windows 
as the dominant platform, OEMs could not afford to ship x86 
computers without Windows. Artificial technical incompatibilities: 
DR-DOS was a direct competitor to MS-DOS before Windows 3.1 hit the 
market. Windows 3.1 was not an operating system; it was a piece of 
separate software called a ``window manager'' that runs on 
top of an operating system. Windows 3.1 was fully compatible with 
both DR-DOS and MS-DOS. In order to prevent people from using 
Windows with DR-DOS, they programmed a module in Windows to detect 
DR-DOS. If DR-DOS was detected, it threw error messages-not 
``Windows is not compatible with DR-DOS'' error messages, 
but random cryptic messages that could not be traced or fixed. 
Microsoft tech support staff told customers that DR-DOS was not 
truly MS-DOS compatible (it was) and that DR-DOS was causing the 
error messages. Giving away free products: This is well-documented 
with Netscape, and I will not rehash it here. In a nutshell, then, 
Microsoft has a proven history of eliminating competition by 
manipulating their operating system and software holdings. Without 
splitting the company in two, this pattern will continue.
    Consider: Internet Explorer WAS a piece of software; now 
Microsoft claims it is part of the operating system. Windows 
Explorer

[[Page 26655]]

WAS a piece of software (windows 3.1); now Microsoft claims it is 
part of the operating system. It is likely a matter of time before 
software like MSN, Office, MSN Messenger and others are ``part 
of the operating system'', and software such as AOL, 
WordPerfect, AOL Instant Messenger and others are 
``incompatible programs'' that cannot be shipped with OEM 
products or installed and run on Windows'' computers. Did I say 
I would be brief? Sorry about that-it's a very complicated 
subject after all.



MTC-00018994

From: Patrick Nolan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Is this for real? Is anyone monitoring this mailbox? I hope not 
because the organized campaign by the anti-Microsoft crowd is 
imploring people to send mail to this address to voice their 
``displeasure'' with the terms of the settlement. http://
www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23802.html is just one of many 
popular pages suggesting that people write to the DOJ to complain 
about the settlement.
    Patrick Nolan



MTC-00018995

From: metallik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement:
    I, among many others, disagree with this settlement as being far 
too lenient on Microsoft. One remedy that should be enforced is the 
opening of Microsoft's document and networking standards to the 
public. Microsoft used illegal means to achieve monopolistic status 
on the computer desktop, and they use their proprietary office 
document and network authentication schemes to help maintain this 
status. Forcing Microsoft to open these standards (such as the exact 
makeup of Microsoft Word .DOC files, Excel .XLS files, SMB 
authentication, etc) will help promote competition, as other vendors 
can implement support for these standards.
    Right now, business owners are almost forced to purchase MS 
Office products because Office file formats are the de-facto 
standard around the world. Otherwise, their ability to exchange 
information with other businesses is severely compromised. This 
kills competiton, and benefits no one but Microsoft. By allowing 
open access to these de-facto file standards, other application 
developers can support them natively, thus promoting competition in 
the application industry. Compeition means better quality, which may 
even cut down on the number of computer viruses and exploits, as 
Microsoft would be forced to subject their products to much better 
quality control (or risk losing market share). There are other 
remedies I would like to see taken against Microsoft, but the above 
is one of the best choices. It doesn't impact Microsoft directly, 
nor does it require a lot of governmental oversight, but it WOULD 
greatly increase competition and prevent Microsoft from relying on 
proprietary standards to illegally maintain a monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Scott II
    6833 Merwin
    Cincinnati, OH 45227



MTC-00018997

From: Gary McDaniel
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement because will 
not adequately punish them for their anti-competitive behavior nor 
will it keep them from continuing to stampede over competitors 
through anti-competitive, not to mention illegal, strategies. Our 
own federal courts found the guilty. Adding to the proliferation of 
the Windows operating system by giving Microsoft access to countless 
school computers doesn't seem like punishment to me. Please find an 
appropriate punitive response.
    Thank you,
    Gary McDaniel
    Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00018998

From: Stephen McNicholas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I wish to add my comments to the Microsoft Settlement. I don't 
believe that the existing settlement is sufficient. Yes, Microsoft 
has done some good things (including making it easier for most 
people to use computers). However, I believe that Microsoft is a 
monopoly in the operating system, office suite, and browser markets, 
thus allowing them to consistently overcharge their customers. With 
Microsoft's new licensing restrictions, they are going to be able to 
gouge their corporate customers. (As you know corporate IT 
departments tend to standardize their systems.. Since they have been 
locked into Microsoft products for some time, they may not be able 
to easily switch to other products.) There is a solution.. Its 
called the WINE project (www.winehq.com). WINE is an open source 
implementation of Microsoft API for Unix based systems.. API is the 
interface between the operating system, and the software that the 
user really wants to use. In plain english, it allows Unix based 
systems to run Microsoft programs. As you know, Linux is an open 
source (free, in both the meanings ``free beer'' and 
``free to read the source code and modify''), and has been 
touted as a potential competitor of Microsoft. Linux has come a long 
way from its beginnigs, and even offers some powerful GUIs (for 
examples, see www.gnome.org and www.kde.org), and some powerful 
office suites (www.openoffice.org, www.koffice.org, etc.) As a 
remedy, Microsoft should be forced to publish their API publicly, 
completely, and accurately. Note that Microsoft does not have to 
publish the source code.. Instead, they can just document how it all 
works. Moreover, Microsoft should be forced to document their closed 
file formats. for example, the .doc format used by Microsoft word. 
this would allow others to develop programs that can easily read 
Microsoft Word documents. I believe that a combination of the WINE 
project and Linux would be an extremely powerful competitor to 
Microsoft.
    thank you.
    Stephen McNicholas



MTC-00018999

From: Marci Wilson-Boggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I feel strongly that the decision reached by the U.S. Department 
of Justice in this case against Microsoft is little more than a 
``slap on the wrist'' to a company that has been forced to 
pay out millions of dollars to various competitive companies in the 
past 15 years for their clearly negligent violations of patents, 
copyrights, nondisclosures and license agreements. Microsoft has 
such a blatant history of unethical behavior. Who is actually going 
to hold them accountable for this judgment? They will ultimately 
find a way to keep issues tied up in litigation for years to come, 
rather than do the right thing for the computer industry... allow 
fair competition to thrive. I anticipate that in the next five 
years, the United States will be forced to bring further antitrust 
action against Microsoft again, due primarily to their violation of 
user privacy issues that are just now beginning to surface. Fair 
competition breeds true innovation. In my opinion, Microsoft should 
be forced to split their company into smaller divisions, and give 
the rest of the world the opportunity to create and innovate for 
larger marketshare.
    Marci Wilson-Boggs
    Americas CASC (Customer Advocacy Supply Chain)
    X78612 or (303) 272-8612



MTC-00019000

From: Gregory Peker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have used both linux and windows in the past and have 
discontinued using linux for two reasons. Incompatibilities with 
hardware and lack of software. First of all, in linux, not all my 
equipment inside my computer work properly due to a lack of correct 
drivers. Windows, on the other hand, provides a wealth of drivers. A 
problem with alternative OS'' is that they lack necessary 
software. I am a web site designer and in linux, there is a huge 
deficit of programs I use (i.e.. Photoshop, dreamweaver, flash). I 
am not saying that Windows is very good, Microsoft can do a lot 
better, but I'm saying is that before you make a decision as to 
Microsoft's future, consider the alternatives. Linux, Solaris, and 
other similar operating systems are very good for servers because 
they provide the stability and protection needed. They are open 
source so IT officers can change part of the operating system to 
accommodate their requirements. One big problem that I have with 
Microsoft is their use of their proprietary technology. Some 
examples are, IIS (it's capability to serve ASP), SQL, and etc. 
Microsoft has a lot of

[[Page 26656]]

these proprietary technologies which force users to switch to their 
operating system. I think there should be a committee set up in 
Microsoft, payed for by Microsoft and hired by the government. This 
committee would assist Microsoft into deciding what to do so they 
don't get into any antitrust cases again. Some things they should do 
is to open the source code to some of Microsoft's code. Perhaps, 
open source Windows 3.11 and older. Those operating systems are 
obsolete and no one uses them anymore. Then in a few years, open 
source to the Windows 9x operating system, and continue doing this 
when the technology becomes obsolete. As a web site designers, I 
work with ASP and SQL very often. I would prefer running the 
server's under LINUX, but the only programs that serve ASP in LINUX 
are not as good as IIS. Microsoft should be forced to create an 
alternative to IIS for the LINUX platform. I am not a Windows 
enthusiast, nor am I a LINUX enthusiast. Both operating systems have 
a lot of potential, but for two completely different segments. 
Windows is more for the new computer user or someone who is not very 
good at computers. LINUX is for those computers geeks who know how 
to use the DOS like ROOT found in LINUX. I would prefer to run 
LINUX, but because of my software development requirements, can't. 
One thing that could be useful is the development of LINDOWS (found 
at www.lindows.com ) which could be a good alternative to LINUX. 
This would not stray customers away from Windows, but provide people 
with a much larger choice of operating systems. If lindows can live 
up to its reputation, I wouldn't mind setting up a dual-boot system 
again. I won't get rid of Windows, but I will use it less. Most 
people will still use Windows because it will most likely be the 
only Operating System available in pre-built systems (i.e.. dell, 
gateway, Compaq, alienware, and etc.).
    Gregory Peker



MTC-00019001

From: Aiichiro Yoshida
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:20pm
Subject: Do not settle the deal as it is presented
    I believe the settlement does not help schools as much. 
Microsoft should donate money in the form of cash rather than in the 
form of inflated used computer price. This only help Microsoft to 
increase its influence on high schools. Schools should have right to 
say how the money is used and what equipments/softwares are needed. 
No need for microsoft to give them over-priced equipments and 
softwares that they may not need.



MTC-00019002

From: Matt Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How do I put this...What a joke of a case this is turning out to 
be and what a joke of a resolution as well. Microsoft wants the 
money but doens't even want to listen (unless you pay them too) when 
you want to tell them what is wrong. They said the IE4 doens't do 
anything if it is integrated or just installed. They already signed 
saying they wouldn't do certain things yet they do. They use their 
muscle to push other people out of business when they find something 
they like and now they want everyone to go through them to write 
drivers or programs. Why don't we just hand Bill and Steve the US 
and just sit back and take the whole length of this up the ass. Yes, 
I think that is a good way to put, just take the whole length of 
this up the ass. The entire way this has been handled is just poor. 
Microsoft has lied to the people and should be punished. I think the 
company should suffer to being split, having a total of 3 people on 
the inside is going to accomplish nothing. Their will be enough red 
tape for them to go through that they will probably never get to the 
issues that serious computer geeks/professionals care about.
    But then again, go ahead, let Microsoft have it easy, and use 
their own products to run the governments'' systems. Meanwhile, 
I will make a push for something like linux (and so will others, it 
has already started) and I will try to make sure that everyone 
understands that the government backed down when they shouldn't have 
and that Microsoft is more worried about making the money more than 
producing well written softare.
    I am completely thankful for what Microsoft has brought to home 
computing but they cannot be the only company to do this. Business 
in AMERICA is what it is because of free competition, Micro$oft 
wants to push everyone out of the way. That is wrong and companies 
in the past that have attempted to do so have been dealt with. Now 
is time to deal with Microsoft.
    A citizen of these United States



MTC-00019003

From: Ben Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that any settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. 
Microsoft has repeatedly demonstraded that it will do anything to 
win in the technology industry and I don't think that the settlement 
will be strong enough to stop them from destroying the desktop 
market more than they already have.
    -Ben Jacobs
    ``one thing i can tell you is you got to be free.''



MTC-00019004

From: Scott Walter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public Comment:
    Microsoft has abused its monopoly with Windows Operating System 
and has engaged in hugely anti-competitive business practices. The 
settlement proposal offered by Microsoft is, in a word, a joke. They 
propose to give schools free software and refurbished PC's, which 
would do nothing more than expand their already ludicrous 
marketshare. This would be particularly detrimental to the likes of 
Apple Computer, AOL/Time Warner (Netscape Internet Browser), and all 
other competing products.
    Microsoft must be be punished severely for its years of anti-
competitive practices, whether by settlement or court decision. At 
the minimum, a very large fine (or cash donation to schools) should 
be imposed. To be effective, this amount must be at least $750 
million. Microsoft should also issue a ``statement of 
intent'' as a press release, admitting wrongdoing and promising 
change. As further punishment, Microsoft should be required to list 
alternatives to its Windows Operating System/Explorer with any 
donation (to any school) it makes. This would guarantee a fair and 
balanced settlement and ensure the school's choice of hardware and 
software. In particular, Microsoft should be forced to mention 
``Apple/Mac OS'', ``Netscape'' and even the 
``Linux'' OS.
    Thank you.
    Scott Walter



MTC-00019005

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad deal for consumers 
and almost everyone else except Microsoft. Please do not accept this 
travesty of an agreement.
    Thank you,
    Kenneth McDonald



MTC-00019006

From: Trevor Buley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice TM.
    a proud subsiduary of the Microsoft Corporation.
    P.S. In the likelyhood that the DoJ is not smart enough to 
understand, the comment i made was sarcastic. Also, the word 
sarcastic can be found in the Oxford dictonary.
    Kind regards.
    Trevor



MTC-00019007

From: Mark Kolmar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I oppose the Microsoft settlement agreement. This is a large, 
subtle, multi-faceted issue about which one could write volumes. I 
will state my objections as succinctly as possible. The agreement 
provides no penalty for the misbehavior that the courts have found.
    The agreement provides for only weak oversight for enforcement 
of the agreement.
    The agreement contains enormous loopholes which would enable 
Microsoft to work around the spirit of the agreement and therefore 
to bypass the weak remedies provided.
    The agreement offers inadequate safeguards against Microsoft's 
monopoly power.
    Mark Kolmar
    1510 Valley Lake Drive #123
    Schaumburg, IL 60195

[[Page 26657]]



MTC-00019008

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been given too much leeway ever since they first 
began publishing Windows 95 versions with Internet Explorer touted 
everywhere from the startup screen to system support. The delays 
they have caused in the legal process have granted them further 
monopoly powers, ignoring the cases brought against them by not only 
the DOJ but by states and many different individual companies. It is 
time to give Microsoft the justice they deserve, and that is not 
something which is part of their proposals for settlement (which 
would extend their monopoly even further and take over as much as 
possible of the school market, which has previously been dominated 
by Apple). No fine considerably less than one trillion dollars or 
any series of promises will have any effect on their dangerous and 
obviously illegal practices. Microsoft must be forcibly broken in 
such a way that it cannot extend its monopoly into the server and 
security markets as it is now attempting with Passport. Don't let 
Microsoft do what it has done to Netscape and WordPerfect again. 
Don't let their ludicrous arguments that justice is going to cost 
taxpayers money and stifles ``innovation'' keep the DOJ 
from dealing justice to them.
    Thank you for your time.
    Daniel Jensen
    Provo, UT



MTC-00019009

From: Eric Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing today in regards to the proposed Anti-trust 
settlement between the US government and Microsoft corporation. I 
believe that this proposed agreement short-changes the American 
public by allowing Microsoft to continue with its current anti-
competitive practices. For instance, the overly narrow definitions 
of ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' and ``API'' 
means that Section III.D.'s requirement to release information about 
Windows interfaces would not cover many important interfaces. 
Without the ability to understand these APIs, many application 
developers for competing platforms and products are unable to make 
their products interoperable with Microsoft's. This interoperabilty 
requirement is penultimate to other developers, as Microsoft 
currently has a monopoly in the Operating System business, and 
compatibility is the only way to sell products. I strongly believe 
that this proposal needs to be seriously rethought, with tougher 
actions taken against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Smith



MTC-00019011

From: Matthew Barron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, PLEASE reconsider the terms of this settlement. With the 
present provisions Microsoft will be free to steamroll along as it 
always has, crushing legitimate competition unfairly and killing 
diversity in the software market (to say nothing of its plans in 
others).
    Thank you.



MTC-00019012

From: Scott Trotter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    The prosecution of Microsoft for unfair and unlawful practices 
was a breath of fresh air for those of us involved with computers. 
The proposed settlement is an example of cowardice on the part of 
the prosecutors, and a vindication of all that Microsoft has done in 
the past to reach the position of monopoly and abuse it has reached 
at this time. It is clear to every thinking computer user that 
Microsoft has, and continues to, strangle the computer industry, in 
terms of contributors, innovation, and free thought.
    The proposed settlement should be made void, and the D.O.J. 
should aggressively deal with Microsoft by breaking into smaller, 
more responsible, and morally just companies. No other remedy is 
acceptable.
    Yours,
    Scott J. Trotter



MTC-00019013

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From: Darren Hiebert Madison, Alabama Senior Software Engineer, 
XonTech, Inc.
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the Proposed Final 
Judgement for reasons that I have found to be exceptionally well 
summarized and addresses by the following ``Open Letter to 
DOJ'', found at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Unless the settlement addresses the concerns raised in this 
letter, I cannot find the settlement acceptable.
    Darren Hiebert
    
    XonTech, Inc.
    (256) 971-2977



MTC-00019014

From: Kevin M. Squire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I have some concerns about the recent DOJ/Microsoft settlement 
that I'd like to share. Specifically, the settlement does not 
prevent Microsoft from discriminate against open source software, 
potentially one of Microsoft's greatest competitors.
    I am a Ph.D. student and researcher who depends on non-Microsoft 
operating systems (mainly GNU/Linux) for my work. My research 
involves programming on PC's and an embedded system (in a robot) for 
which running Microsoft Windows is neither much of an option, nor is 
it desirable. For day to day tasks, the sheer ubiquity of Microsoft 
Operating Systems and Microsoft-specific data formats (specifically 
Word and multi-media formats), and the extreme difficulty in reading 
these formats under Linux, often means that I have to find another 
machine from which to handle documents from collegues or on the web. 
This is annoying.
    A few companies and open source groups are working on ways to 
run MS Windows programs under Linux and other non-Microsoft 
operating systems. Specifically, an open source group 
(www.winehq.org) and a company called Codeweavers 
(www.codeweavers.com), among others, are working on versions of 
Wine, a Windows Emulator. This project, as it matures, has the 
potential of providing serious competition to Microsoft, by allowing 
users to use non-Microsoft operating systems, yet still use MS 
Windows-based products. Other open source projects, such as AbiWord 
(www.abisource.org) and KWord (http://www.koffice.org/kword/), 
attempt to read or translate Microsoft Word documents.
    The DOJ/Microsoft settlement tries to encourage competition, yet 
fails to do much at all to benefit important competitors such as the 
above-mentioned projects. One potential benefit would be to allow 
access to Microsoft APIs and file formats to such open source 
projects. This would help these projects flourish and offer more 
viable choices to consumers. Another, more important consideration, 
would be to include open source projects in the list of ISVs against 
which Microsoft should not discriminate. For example, both the 
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA, and the Microsoft 
Platform SDK EULA prohibit redistribution of (normally 
distributable) components with publicly available software or on 
non-Microsoft operating systems, respectively. Nothing in the DOJ/
Microsoft agreement prohibits this discrimination, which again, has 
the potential to limit competition from open source projects.
    While the DOJ/Microsoft settlement does somewhat address 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, I hope that you consider 
using this opportunity to modify the settlement such that it 
encourages more competition from open source projects, and by 
closing potential loopholes that Microsoft could use to engage in 
anti-competitive behavior in the future.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Squire ([email protected])
    Ph.D. Student
    Language Acquisition and Robotics Group
    Beckman Institute / Department of Electrical and Computer 
Engineering
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



MTC-00019015

From: Victor R. Cardona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft-DOJ settlement is flawed. Although the 
drafters of the settlement clearly wanted to restore a measure of 
competition to the software market, they have instead allowed 
Microsoft to extend its control over that market by allowing 
Microsoft to define certain key terms used in the settlement.

[[Page 26658]]

    Microsoft has shown its contempt for the law in the past by 
virtually ignoring a consent decree, falsifying evidence during the 
1998 antitrust trial, and sending letters supposedly written by 
deceased people in order to convince the states'' attorneys 
general that they should accept the proposed settlement. They have 
already been found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly by two 
seperate courts. They're behavior since those rulings shows no sign 
of change. They should not be allowed to dictate the terms of their 
settlement. Please reject the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Victor R. Cardona
    231 S. Kansas St
    Edwardsville, IL 62025



MTC-00019016

From: William Softky
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Advice
    Sirs, Microsoft is the most powerful and exploitive monopoly 
since Standard Oil over a hundred years ago. If anti-trust law is to 
have any meaning, it must be strongly enforced in this case, which 
means rectifying the market imbalance, reigning in future conduct, 
and compensating for past injustice. We must *enforce* the law of 
the land.
    William Softky
    Senior Architect
    Reuters, Inc.



MTC-00019017

From: Vartan Piroumian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:54pm
Subject: Proposed Final Judgement: United States versus Microsoft 
Dear
    Sir or Madam,
    As per the Tunney Act I am writing to express my considerable 
dismay at the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in the case of the 
United States versus Microsoft. My motivation for writing is to give 
you a perspective on the dangers of allowing Microsoft to escape 
justice through the inadequate terms of the PFJ. I hope to encourage 
you to draft a much more comprehensive, precise, unambiguous 
settlement that adequately curbs Microsoft from further hurting the 
American people as well as citizens of many other countries.
    I am a professional software engineer, and I am very well versed 
in the technical details that surround all of the issues in the 
Findings of Fact, Competitive Impact Report, and other official 
documents related to this case. This letter is not the appropriate 
forum to discuss all of these technical issues. Nevertheless, I 
would like to point out the crux of the issue at hand.
    I believe the important question for the citizens of the United 
States, in the spirit of the motivation behind the laws that 
prohibit monopolization in our country, is: ``Does this 
settlement address the best interests of Americans?'' My answer 
is a resounding and unequivocal NO! The myriad ways in which 
Microsoft relentlessly pursues absolute domination through 
unethical, immoral and illegal activities will continue to hurt 
Americans as it has already done! The fact is that Microsoft 
software is inferior in many regards to alternative offerings that 
are available to the general public at lower cost. Yet consumers are 
not aware of this fact because they have never been given a chance 
to see alternative offerings, which are not allowed to compete in a 
fair, competitive environment.
    Microsoft has intentionally created a vicious cycle-which 
will be perpetuated by your currently proposed PFJ-that 
prohibits consumers from ever seeing alternative software solutions. 
Microsoft has intentionally created an anti-competitive operating 
environment in which OEMs, VARs, and so forth are 
discouraged-even threatened-from even exposing 
alternative software to consumers. Moreover, they create unfair 
competition by restricting access to their platform and by creating 
proprietary application programming interfaces (APIs), file formats, 
network protocol extensions, and so forth. Moreover, they have 
intentionally broken the compatibility of other vendors'' 
software. The result is a vicious cycle in which consumers are more 
and more convinced that Microsoft software works better than 
anything else.
    Other vendors can't compete on equal footing because of their 
disadvantage in software development, sales, deployment and 
exposure. The consumers'' experience is that only Microsoft 
software is compatible with the Microsoft platform and environments. 
Consumers are therefore discouraged from using alternative software. 
This decision further increases Microsoft's stranglehold on the 
market, perpetuating the cycle.
    After more than fifteen years, simple, common Microsoft office 
applications still contain a plethora of bugs. Consumers in all 
walks of the private, commercial and high-tech sectors complain 
bitterly about the lack of quality and realiability of Microsoft 
products. They get inadequate technical assistance, pay increasingly 
more for their products, and are subject to tighter licensing fees 
that lock them into increasing dependency on Microsoft products.
    Furthermore, innovation from other companies continues to be 
stifled. Therefore, consumers and professionals alike are condemned 
to further suffer the inferior status quo. How is all this in the 
best interest of Americans?
    The average American thinks Microsoft is wonderful because 
they've never been given the chance to see any alternative 
solutions. Only you, the government, can remedy this situation. 
Create an environment that truly fosters fair competition. Give 
vendors a chance to compete on equal footing. Then let the market 
decide. Isn't that the main tenet of a free market, capitalist 
economy?
    Mr. Vartan Piroumian
    828 Lathrop Drive
    Palo Alto, CA 94305



MTC-00019018

From: Tom Tetzlaff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is lousy. Apparently, the number 
of complaints is what counts, so consider this a complaint. Enough 
said.
    Thomas Tetzlaff



MTC-00019019

From: Allen Crider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. I disagree with the settlement reached by the Department 
of Justice and Microsoft. It does little to punish Microsoft and 
does little to prevent continued abuse of their monopoly position.
    Allen Crider



MTC-00019020

From: David Corcoran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Please don't fail to recognize Microsoft's misuse of power in 
this industry. The current settlement only rewards Microsoft by 
allowing them to further expand their monopoly into the education 
market. The XBox is nothing more than a ploy for Microsoft to 
secretly merge their way into the PC industry. Mark my words, you 
will see office applications and a keyboard and internet and .NET 
for the XBox. It will continue to sell for $300 and put companies 
like Gateway and Compaq out of business. Microsoft is dangerous, and 
abusive with their power-do not fail to recognize this.
    If you want to make a difference consider having Microsoft 
purchasing new Apple iMacs or iBooks for schools and allow Microsoft 
to bundle Microsoft Office with these computers, at OEM pricing.....
    Thanks,
    Dave



MTC-00019021

From: Lance Hoffmeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. It does not 
go far enough in punishing the monopoly. Many goog ideas and many 
competitors anies were put out of businness because of Microsoft's 
monopoly. A more severe penelty is required.
    Lance Hoffmeyer



MTC-00019022

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to emphatically state my opposition to currently proposed 
remedy with respect to the Microsoft settlement. The remedy as 
proposed will do nothing to curb the predatory practices that have 
been employed, and will continue to be employed, by Microsoft. Just 
as we have multiple paths in our highway system and the internet for 
national security reasons, allowing Microsoft to continue to operate 
in the forced monopolistic control it currently enjoys removes all 
of that security by forcing a single point of failure in our 
electronic enterprise, especially so with respect to government 
actions resulting in the forced use of only operating systems and 
office suites from Microsoft, products which are

[[Page 26659]]

inherently unstable, and the prime carriers of computer viri.
    David C. Johanson, Ph.D.



MTC-00019023

From: William Kueppers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am AGAINST the current proposed settlement. It will set back 
the industry more than the 20 years that Microsoft already has. In 
my 37 years in this industry which grew out entrepreneurial spirit 
and competition it's sad to see it in the hands of all the worst 
monopolies.
    William Kueppers



MTC-00019024

From: Rich Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Linux user, I am opposed to the way that Microsoft is 
placing a stranglehold on my ability to use an operating system of 
my choosing. The proposed settlement offers meathods for businesses 
(ISV's and OEM's, to name a specific few) to gain protection from 
Microsoft's monopoly dealings and some limited recourse. While I do 
not feel that these provisions go far enough, a greater harm may be 
done by specifically naming types of corporations either for profit, 
or non-profit.
    The danger is that Microsoft will remain unchecked against open, 
free colaberations without corporations or legally recognized 
instutitions to stand directly behind. A few examples come 
specifically to mind:
    1) The Ogg Vorbis music format. Ogg Vorbis is a non-comerical 
alternative to the MP3 and Windows Music Format (WMF), both of which 
give me serious restructions with what I legally can and cannot do 
with their formats, and, in my opinon, offer lesser performance. Ogg 
Vorbis is technically the superior of both of these formats, but you 
will NEVER see a Microsoft brand music player work with Ogg without 
sterner restrictions by the government. Why? Microsoft has no need 
for the superior format, since its adoption by the large Windows 
user base would lessen Microsoft's ability to control how users use 
their systems. If Ogg Vorbis fails and falls out of use without 
either a serious technical jump by MP3 or WMA, then it will be the 
fault of the US Justice Department for not ensuring it's ability to 
compete based on it's merits.
    2) The Linux kernel. As it stands now, Linux has many 
corporations, both for profit and non-profit, that stand behind it 
and struggle to ensure it's future and success. However, when Linus 
Torvalds began the kernel, there was no such organizations. 
Microsoft has seen comptition by Linux, and left to it's own 
devices, will squash all new similar forms of competition now that 
it's eyes have been opened by Linux's success. How many similar 
technological innovations will be squashed by Microsoft if the 
Justice Department does not afford them equal rights of a 
corporation?
    Please reconsider your current progress of maintaining the 
status quo.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Jones 53 Highland Ave.
    Mansfield, MA 02048
    [email protected]



MTC-00019025

From: Bill Cameron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The currently proposed Microsoft Anti-trust settlement is a bad 
idea. It should be scrapped and a more severe penalty imposed.
    Regards,
    William H. Cameron
    2960 SE 64th Ave.
    Portland, OR 97206



MTC-00019026

From: Darin S. Ramzinski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree with the proposed settlement for the following 
reason: The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses its 
products to OEMs, but not on how it licenses products to large users 
such as corporations, universities, or state and local governments, 
collectively referred to as ``enterprises''. Yet 
enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-processor 
licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 consent decree in the 
earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for 
each desktop or portable computer which could run a Microsoft 
operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft software is 
actually installed on the affected computer. These agreements are 
anticompetitive because they remove any financial incentive for 
individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft software.



MTC-00019027

From: Chris Bare
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I would like to take this opportunity to state that the terms of 
the Microsoft Settlement do not adequately punish Microsoft for the 
monopolistic behaviors of which it was found guilty. Nor do the 
terms of the settlement server to prevent Microsoft from continuing 
and expanding it's anti-competitive practices in the future. This 
settlement is not in the interest of the people or the industry and 
should be rejected.
    Chris Bare
    Metro Link Incorporated
    1401 NE 9th Street, #46
    Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
    [email protected]
    http://www.metrolink.com/



MTC-00019028

From: Rich Latour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement-You Must Answer to History
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    While an owner of a significant amount of Microsoft common 
stock, I feel that having had their day in court and been found 
guilty that appropriate and meaningful remedies against Microsoft 
must be put in place. This includes restitution to the victims of 
the illegal actions such as Netscape, etc. and structural changes to 
prevent future misdeeds by Microsoft.
    Prior to having been found guilty, Bill Gates and company were 
openly derisive of the concerns of public officials about complaints 
of unfair practices from much smaller businesses than Netscape. In 
at least this case, those claims have been proven true. We cannot 
allow companies because of their size and political influence of 
their owners to consider themselves and their actions above the law 
and public interest.
    You must take the hard road and protect the public. Seize a line 
from a Hollywood movie and remember the ideals you had when choosing 
a law career. Your family and grandchildren are watching.
    Rich



MTC-00019029

From: Autumn Looijen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement does not go nearly far 
enough in protecting future companies against Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices. Please turn down the proposed settlement. 
It would be a disservice to consumers everywhere to do otherwise.
    Thank you,
    Autumn Looijen



MTC-00019030

From: Josiah Royse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the proposed judgement would NOT correct the corporation 
of Microsoft from competing unfairly in the U.S. and world markets.
    Please reconsider the proposed judgement, and bring freedom and 
free choice back to our free market.
    Josiah Royse
    Lexington, KY



MTC-00019031

From: Robert Shallenberg
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the settlement contains nothing at all that will 
constrain Microsoft from their anticompetitive practices. It should 
be much more restrictive:
-Disallow integration of browser, mail, and other such 
programs with the operating system.
-Prevent Microsoft from intimidating pricing policies 
calculated to prevent manufacturers and dealers from selling systems 
with alternative or no operating systems.
    Separate the software division from the operating system 
division, as was suggested in the previously proposed settlement, 
and

[[Page 26660]]

allow technical merit to govern software use rather than unfair 
advantage.
    As the situation in operating systems now stands, the country is 
practically in a state that-if it were agriculture it would be 
termed a monoculture, and this is a dangerous situation. In an 
agricultural monoculture system, a single germ or virus can wipe out 
an entire food supply. In this corresponding operating system 
``monoculture'' the recent wave of computer virus plagues 
have the same cause-it should be noticed that only Microsoft 
operating systems and programs were both the source and the prey of 
the virus infections. (Note that as a user of an 
``alternative'' so-called ``legacy'' system, I 
have not had a single virus in the past 8 years.)
    Please make any settlement reached have some real remedies for 
the already legally established (and long enduring) criminal 
monopolistic business practice of the Microsoft Corporation.
    Thank you for your efforts to these ends.
    Robert Shallenberg
    Oceanside, California
    [email protected]



MTC-00019032

From: Eva Kalman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is BAD
    The current Microsoft settlement is not just. It perpetuates 
their monopoly. If you're in the software business or information 
technology, you must be satisfied to ``buy Microsoft'' or 
write add-on products that aren't too successful, otherwise you're 
afraid for your job or business. The way things are going, the only 
people who will get paid for writing (bad) software are Microsoft 
employees ; everyone else, such as the Open Source advocates, have 
to volunteer and write software for free.
    Eva Kalman
    Wheaton, Illinois



MTC-00019033

From: Brian Beveridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:29pm
Subject: `Microsoft Settlement'
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a computer user (a PC network running Windows products) I 
have followed with great interest the anti-trust suit against 
Microsoft. The outcome of this process will determine my options as 
a computer user, and my costs as a business person. At present, I am 
forced by Microsoft's market domination, to use not only the Windows 
Operating System, but Microsoft's suite of office products, as well.
    I believe that MS has used non-compatibility with competing 
products as a strategy with which to dominate the PC computing 
marketplace.
    I believe, from experience working with software developers, 
that MS has used it's dominant marketing position to stiffle the 
success of small developers, while quickly coming to market with 
poorly designed adaptations of new ideas.
    I believe that the terms and definitions in the proposed 
agreement are overly specific and will allow MS to bypass the anti-
competetive restrictions within months, simply by releasing new 
product.
    In summary, I believe that the Proposed Final Judgment as 
written allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices 
to continue, would delay the emergence of competing Windows-
compatible operating systems, and is therefore not in the public 
interest. It should not be adopted without substantial revision to 
address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Beveridge,
    Owner-Paradigm Three
    PARADIGM THREE
    1645 TELEGRAPH AVE.
    OAKLAND, CA. 94612
    510-832-2295



MTC-00019034

From: J. David Eisenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea for the 
following reasons:
    1) Although Microsoft may not alter its commercial relationship 
with an OEM for shipping a competitive product, they may provide 
``Consideration to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft 
product or service where that Consideration is commensurate with the 
absolute level or amount of that OEM's development, distribution, 
promotion, or licensing of that Microsoft product or service.'' 
What, then, prevents Microsoft from determining that an OEM who 
works -only- with Microsoft products may get a very 
large rebate for every system shipped, but that OEMs who use 
competitive products get no rebate, as their promotion is certainly 
not the at the same level? Effectively, this creates a mechanism 
whereby Microsoft can still financially punish any OEM that ships 
competitive software.
    2) There seems to be no explicit listing of actual consequences 
for violation of any of the agreement, other than ``the 
plaintiffs will investigate this behavior.''
    J. David Eisenberg
    http://catcode.com/
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019035

From: Nick Sharp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    And why is the Passport to the internet .NET as Mickysoft call 
it, which is as good as an official passport, but for the internet, 
being put in the hands of a corporation and not the government 
themselves?
    Regards
    Nick Sharp
    Sond Pty Ltd
    Po Box 53
    Highgate 5063
    South Australia
    Ph: +61 8 8272 4488
    Fax: +61 8 8357 2344
    E-mail: [email protected]
    http://www.sond.com.au



MTC-00019036

From: steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings All,
    As someone who personally experienced Microsoft's casual 
dismissal of customer bug concerns regarding their Foxpro 2.0 
databases in 1994 I find this all deeply unsettling.
    The specific incident I refer to is a clasic example of MS 
inaction. Microsoft knowingly shipped it's initial Foxpro in a state 
that caused it to eat it's database when one tried to exercise 
preventative maintenance during a re-index. This sounds minor until 
you realie that they encouraged the use of the database nationally 
by the United Way, and in the process the United Way lost their 
donor data DBs. Casual estimates are that the United Ways lost over 
70 million in contributions in that year due to this. There is no 
way to measure the amount of suffering that remained unaddressed due 
to MS's callousness. Microsoft not only encouraged software they 
knew was broen to be used, but also refused to provide any fix for 
the bugs in a timely fashion. In conversations with their technical 
support, the United Way vendor for whom I worked, Hewitt-Anderson, 
was told not only that they had no fix, but had no plans to release 
any fix until a the next version of Foxpro, which had no planned 
release date. Cold comfort for hundreds of United Way branches. The 
company feels that it is too powerful and prevasively deployed to 
need to respond in any way to problems it creates, or to even create 
products would survive in a true market environment.
    The only real fix to to break that power down to the point to 
where Micorosoft feels that quality software and addressing customer 
concerns are once again important for it's survival.
    The settlement is a waste of the taxpayer money and civil 
servant effort put into the case thus far. It fails to address the 
illegal restrictive agreements forced onto OEMs that was the heart 
of the actual Netscape case. It fails to address the OS information 
shared only with internal programmers (an extremely underhanded and 
amusing unsuccessful attempt to make up for the fact that non-
microsoft programmers were consistently producing leaner faster 
applications). It fails to address the predatory pricing practices 
that unfairly restict consumer purchasing choice by punishing those 
who don't promise to purchase only the MS software. It fails to 
address that Microsoft lack of concern has created National security 
problems in systems deployed by the government...Are we going to 
point to your settlement as a point when the government hada chance 
and failed to prevent a posssible cyber pearl harbor?
    The current settlement is only in the interest of the Microsoft 
management and lawyer teams. Ultimately even their employees, as US 
citizens, will suffer from the issues arising from the lack of due 
diligence to product quality and security that it luxuriates in as a 
monopoly.
    Don't give up the good fight!
    Steve

[[Page 26661]]



MTC-00019037

From: Eric S TUNE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing you to comment on the proposed Final Judgement 
against Microsoft corporation. I am providing my comments in 
accodance with the Tunney Act.
    I believe that the proposed Final Judgement is, in general, too 
lenient. In particular, I disagree with section III(J)(2), which 
allows Microsoft to decide with which parties to share information 
about certain APIs. I believe that this provision will allow 
Microsoft to hinder competition from small businesses, not-for-
profits, and individuals, by refusing to disclose information about 
certain APIs. Furthermore, this provision would allow Microsoft to 
continue to abuse its monopoly position by impartially disclosing 
information about certain APIs. I urge you to amend the settlement 
to require Microsoft to make publicly known and to freely license 
the APIs covered by Section III(J)(2).
    Please file my comments, and a response to them, with the court, 
as required by the Tunney Act.
    Regards,
    Eric Tune
    [email protected]
    9500 Gilman Drive
    MS 0114
    La Jolla, CA 92093



MTC-00019038

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I watched the whole antitrust trial first with hope, then with 
fear, and now seeing how it will almost surely end, with bitter 
disapointment that my government is so easily bought out.
    The whole situation brings to mind the ``Doctors'' 
words toward the end of the movie ``Alien``- 
something like ``I don't have very much hope for you, but you 
have my sympathy...''
    Any end other than a complete breakup of the companies assets 
being sold off to competitors is in all likelyhood far to little, to 
late. Microsofts buisiness practices and buggy, insecure by design 
software cost the US and world economies billions of dollars in lost 
time and revenue every year.
    If anyone actually reads this, my regards to you.



MTC-00019039

From: casey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Citizen(s)-
    The proposed settlement in no way punishes Microsoft for 
violations of the Anti-trust laws nor does it stop Microsoft from 
continuing its predatory and competition eliminating practices.
    Additionally you should be looking into the deskop productivity 
applications market where Microsoft's binding of their OS with MS 
Office eliminates all market choice.
    Casey Dunn
    2704 All View Way
    Belmont, California 94002



MTC-00019040

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to express my ``opposition'' to the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the 
American public, deleterious to the American economy, not adequate 
given the findings of fact in the trial, and most important, does 
not remedy the harm inflicted on consumers by the low-quality, 
inefficient products that only a Microsoft monoply could 
successfully market.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. (Just imagine how many working people 
are struggling with the infamous ``blue screen of death'' 
an any give moment of any day!)
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    A settlement that would suitably punish Microsoft and also 
remedy that harm that they have done would be to require them to 
place the source code for all of their operating systems under the 
General Public License and make it freely available to those who can 
make it into a productive solution to workplace needs.
    Thank you for considering my remarks.



MTC-00019041

From: Robert Maxwell Case
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I'm a software developer with a cutting edge product that I fear 
could be ``embraced and extended'' by Microsoft along the 
lines of the Netscape scenario. I was a user of the Mosaic browser 
and switched to Netscape as soon as it was released. Although I 
never paid the $39 price for the ``stable'' version, I was 
fully prepared to do so as it was so much better. I also had 
communication with the Mosaic browser development team prior to 
Microsoft's licensing of their technology. I was online the day 
Microsoft announced that Internet Explorer (Mosaic) would now be 
free, forcing Netscape to abandon charging for their product. I was 
angered at once because Microsoft used its monopoly position in 
operating systems and ability to ``write off'' development 
costs to so obviously subvert a competitor with a superior product. 
As a result, Netscape could not maintain market share and eventually 
was sold.
    Am I and countless other developers to infer from the apparent 
``slap-on-the-wrist'' settlement that Microsoft merrily 
may continue to operate in this fashion in the future, depriving us 
of remuneration for our development efforts? I've read that DOS, 
Excel, Word, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and other Microsoft 
products were all developed not at Microsoft, but by independent 
developers. It is clear to me that Microsoft is not an innovator but 
an exploiter.
    To my mind, the best remedy going forward is something akin to 
two children sharing a piece of cake: one cuts and the other 
chooses. In a timely fashion, Microsoft should choose which business 
it wants to be in: operating system software or application 
software, and then divest themselves of the business not chosen.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Maxwell Case



MTC-00019042

From: Paul Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.] Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
From: Paul Reynolds
950 High School Way, #3227
Mountain View, CA 94041
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I work for a company that produces software 
which operates on multiple platforms including Windows, and am also 
an end-user of several Microsoft Operating Systems, Middleware and 
Applications both at work and at home.
    The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft (MS) has a monopoly 
on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, and that the company's 
market position is protected by a substantial barrier to entry, and 
that Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act 2 for illegally 
maintaining its monopoly. According to the Court of Appeals ruling, 
``a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek to 
`unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct', to 
`terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the 
fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no 
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future''.
    Like all those found guilty of a crime, Microsoft need to be 
punished for their actions-ideally in a way that attempts to 
restore competition and undoes the damage inflicted on the consumer 
by their

[[Page 26662]]

anticompetitive behaviour. MS has profitted greatly from their 
behaviour, and the fruits of their illegal actions must be denied to 
them.
    Previous court ordered remedies have shown that Microsoft 
willfully ignores and attempts to circumvent any restrictions placed 
on them by careful selection of the language used in these remedies, 
and stalling with continued appeals such that by the time a 
resolution occurs, there is no surviving competition.
    Microsoft show no signs of remorse or attempts to change their 
pattern of behaviour. Indeed, while conceding certain points on 
existing Operating Systems (OS), they are careful to ensure that 
applications (such as Microsoft Office Suite) and future products 
such as .NET are excluded from any restrictions. It is clear from 
their pattern of behaviour that they will attempt to monopolise 
these markets, and that nothing but the most severe restrictions on 
their behaviour will have any effect.
    Since many of the companies adversely affected by Microsoft are 
no longer operating due to the illegal monopoly, it is hard to make 
reparation to them. Rather, the remedy must seek to redress the harm 
done to the consumer, and to prevent Microsoft continuing to use its 
illegaly gained market dominance to monopolise new markets. It is 
apparent that Microsoft traditionally gains dominance in a new 
market buy tying sales of one product to sales of another-for 
example, the bundling of Microsoft Office with Windows, and the 
intimidation of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure 
that this continues to the exclusion of competitors. Their willful 
circumvention of previous court restrictions, which violate the 
spirit if not the exact letter of the agreements, indicate that MS 
must be given no latitude in which to avoid punishment. The only 
option remaining if this is true, is a structural remedy.
    Structural Remedy: The existing MS corporation must be split 
into at least 5 separate companies, each of which is barred from 
operating in the other 4 areas or joining with one of the other 
compnaies for a period of not less than 10 years. The company should 
be split along the following lines:- Operating Systems, Computer 
Programming Languages (must include .NET and C#), Applications 
(such as MS Office), Hardware (including XBox), and Internet 
Services (MSN, Hotmail etc). Microsoft continually use their 
monopoly position in each of these sections to dominate 
others- and must be denied the opportunity to do so in the 
only method it appears that will work. It is imperative that the 
.NET be split from all other services, since it is clear MS intends 
to use this to tie in future applications and services and 
`lock out'' competing products. Previous anti-trust cases 
which have resulted in large corporations being split extensively 
detail prohibitions on these individual companies.
    It is clear that despite all evidence pointing to a structural 
remedy as being the only solution, the courts are unlikely to impose 
such a remedy. Whether or not this is implemented, the following 
aspects of MS illegal behaviour must be addressed.
    Consumers Overcharged and Require Compensation: In addition to 
monopolising markets, the consumer has been harmed by Microsoft 
products being overpriced than would have occurred had competition 
been available. Once again, Microsoft must be denied any profits 
from their illegal activities. The consumer must be recompensed for 
this, and so a substantial cash fine should be levied against MS, 
which would then be divided amongst all registered users of 
Microsoft products. This fine should be no less than 1 billion US 
dollars-note that MS currently have cash reserves of over $35 
billion and this is increasing rapidly-it is a small fine to 
MS.
    Should this not prove to be practical, then MS should still be 
fined, but with the money going to the purchase of computer and 
computer related hardware for schools, colleges and charity groups. 
MS should not be allowed to provide software for these systems, and 
alternatives such as Apple computers or free software such as Linux 
must be used instead. This will not only return some benefit to the 
consumer, but prevent further harm done to MS competitors.
    Applications Barrier to Entry: Significant barriers exist to 
competing products in the marketplace due to Microsofts illegal 
monopoly. These must be eroded and removed in the following ways: By 
forbidding retaliation against OEMs, Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), and Independant 
Hardware Vendors (IHVs) who support or develop alternatives to 
Windows.
    All APIs and file formats (MS Word, MS Excel, MS Access, MS 
Powerpoint, MS Outlook and Outlook Express, WMP-the Microsoft 
Middleware Products) should be available to ISVs and HSVs. File 
formats should be open and available for public viewing at no cost. 
Any changes made to APIs and file formats must be announced and 
specified a period of time must have passed before these changes are 
implemented (e.g. 180 days for APIs and 90 days for file formats). 
Current definitions of APIs allow MS to avoid releasing 
documentation on many important interfaces. File formats, while an 
important barrier to entry, are currently not included in the 
proposed settlement and must be publicly disclosed.
    Wording of the licence agreement for ISVs accessing APIs and 
documentation shall state that it will solely be for the purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product or with 
application software written for Windows. Current phrasing limits 
this to OS only. Definitions of requirements for companies or 
individuals to access APIs should be publicly available and 
independently enforced-MS should have no say in this part of 
the decision process.
    All patents covering the Windows APIs must be disclosed. 
Currently those ISVs producing Windows-compatible operating systems 
are uncertain if they are infringing on Microsoft software patents.
    Wording of the current proposed final judgement should not 
prevent ISVs using released APIs to make alternative OSs compatible 
with Windows based OSs.
    Forced Upgrades Must be Stopped: MS abuses its monopoly postion 
by forcing consumers to upgrade from older products to newer ones, 
at substantial cost. Since there is now no effective competition due 
to the illegal actions, the consumer has no alternative but to go 
with MS products. By altering file formats in latest releases that 
are incompatible with older versions, and by removing older products 
from sale, MS force the consumer to upgrade.
    To prevent this, file formats for all Office Applications and 
WMP must be publicly available at no cost to allow alternatives to 
be developed. This is mentioned in detail above. To prevent the 
removal of older products that are still viable applications, 
Microsoft must continue to support older products for at least 15 
years after their introduction. MS may choose not to support the 
software during this time citing that it is not a useful product, in 
which case it is allowed to do so but must make the entire MS source 
code to the application publicly and freely available. Under these 
circumstances, users may maintain and compile the software 
themselves. This will apply to operating systems as well as 
middleware and applications.
    Prohibiting practices towards OEMs: In addition to current 
restrictions in the Proprosed Final Judgement (PFJ), Microsoft must 
be restricted against reprisals for OEMs that sell PCs with a 
competing OS but no Microsoft OS. The PFJ requires Microsoft to 
license Windows on uniform terms and at published prices to the top 
20 OEMs, but says nothing about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft 
free to retaliate against smaller OEMs if they offer competing 
products. There should be selected `groups'' of OEMs of 
varying sizes, for example OEMs 1-20, 21-100, 
101-1000, 1001+, and in those bands prices must be uniform and 
published on all MS OS, Applications, and Middleware products. 
Market Development Allowances (discounts) to OEMs must be fully 
disclosed in public. Discounts may not be given in one product (e.g. 
Office Applications) due to sales in another product (e.g. OS). This 
will prevent MS using its OS dominance to move its monopoly into 
other areas.
    Enforcement: MS will attempt to circumvent all remedies to the 
best of their ability. Strong, independent and effective supervision 
of MS is necessary, and a panel of several industry experts (chosen 
by the courts and complainants, with minimal input by MS) must be 
allowed full and unfettered access to MS documents. They will be 
provided with support staff, and be paid for by MS at competitive 
rates given their experience. This panel should have the ability to 
force release of MS documentation and source code, and delay the 
release of products until compliance is complete. Any undisclosed 
APIs discovered should result in a large cash fine. Current proposed 
enforcement allows no incentive for MS to comply with the remedy.
    Some of the above stated remedies may seem extreme, but given 
the magnitude of the MS corporation and the extend to which it has 
broken the law, the remedies must be of a similar magnitude. As 
stated in the first few paragraphs, the intent of any remedy is to 
restore competition, terminate the monopoly, deny the benefits of 
the illegal actions, and prevent such abuses from ocurring in the

[[Page 26663]]

future. Due to the uncooperative nature of MS, the remedy must be 
decisive and strongly enforced.
    While MS has already done considerable harm to the consumer by 
its illegal actions, there are many future markets in which MS can 
gain a further monopoly-and exacerbate the problem. They must 
be prevented from doing so. If an individual commits a crime where 
the public have been illegaly overcharged that individual will be 
fined, and perhaps imprisoned-and certainly would be if he was 
a repeat offender shown to ignore previous court orders. Microsoft 
must be no different, or justice will not be done, and will not be 
seen to be done.
    Paul Reynolds
    Senior Research Engineer
    Weidlinger Associates, Inc.
    4410 E1 Camino Real, Ste. 110,
    Los Altos, CA 94022
    Tel: 650 949 3011 Ext. 143
    Fax: 650 949 5735
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00019043

From: Elijah Menifee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement will NOT solve the 
problems arising from Microsoft's monopoly. The proposed 
settlement does not take into account ISVs working on competing 
Operating Systems that would be interoperable with Microsoft 
Products. In sectins III.D. and III.E. of the PFJ the api 
information that microsoft would be required to release uses 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product''. This does not allow ISVs to use the 
released information to write a more secure Operating System to run 
Microsoft Middleware/Microsoft Applications on. This only allows 
competion in the Application/Middleware market, leaving Microsoft a 
Monopoly in the Operating System Product market. I think many of 
Microsoft's product offerings are good products, such as the Office 
suite. I however do not currently use such products because I 
personally find that the Microsoft Operating System is not flexable 
or secure enough for my day to day work. One ISV that I am aware of( 
Lindows.com, Inc.) is attempting to write a competing Operating 
System, that would allow me to run the Mircrosoft Office on a more 
flexable and secure OS. The PFJ as it stands would specifically 
exclude them from using the microsoft released APIs to interoperate 
with the Windows Application Products that I would like to use. In 
my opinion the PFJ needs to be modified to exclude the clause 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product'', and replaced with a phrase similar 
to ``for the purpose of interoperating with a Microsoft 
Product''.
    Elijah C. Menifee
    Software Engineer
    da Vinci Network Services LLC



MTC-00019044

From: Ted Coolidge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To all concerned, I find the proposed terms of the settelment 
unsatisfactory. Considering that Microsoft has been found GUILTY on 
several counts, I expect substantial remedies. Your proposed 
settlement does not constitute a remedy, im my opinion. Microsoft 
has demonstrated a will to ``bend'', and even ignore the 
law in the past. In light of these repeated offenses, a more serious 
remedy is in order.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Theodore Coolidge
    23 Bay State Road
    Worcester MA 01606
    Registered voter!



MTC-00019045

From: Ian L. Kaplan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Justice Department
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to you to urge the Justice Department not to settle 
the anti-trust law suit with Microsoft.
    I am a software engineer with over twenty years of experience. I 
currently work for a financial trading company working on trading 
software. So when I write that I strongly believe that Microsoft is 
a major anti-competitive force in my industry, I am writing to you 
without direct financial interest in the out come of the law suit. I 
world like to see a software industry where there are more diverse 
software choices. A vigorous pursuit of the anti-trust suit against 
Microsoft will produce this result.
    I could write at length discussing how Microsoft's past actions 
and current undertakings strangle competition through their sheer 
size in the market place. But given the number of e-mails I'm sure 
you will get on this topic, such a long missive would probably be 
out of place. I would be happy to comment at some future date if it 
would be of interest to the Justice Department.
    Rather than go on at length I will simply request again that the 
US Justice Department not settle their anti-trust case with 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time.
    Yours,
    Ian Kaplan
    [email protected]
    P.O. Box 215
    Tesuque, NM 87574



MTC-00019046

From: Gary Von Colln
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I wish to express my opinion on the Proposed Final Judgment in 
the Microsoft Antitrust case. I believe that the Proposed Final 
Judgment is not just and the USDOJ should reject it. My reasons for 
this belief can be summarized as:
    1. It does not do enough to punish Microsoft.
    2. It does not do enough to promote competition against the 
Microsoft monopoly in operating systems and application programs. I 
would like to see a remedy that did more to ensure that the entire 
Microsoft Windows API is fully documented for anyone who is 
interested in it. This should also apply to all file formats used by 
Microsoft programs (Windows, Word, Excel, etc). Because of 
Microsoft's dominant position in the market and its anticompetitive 
practices, all Windows APIs and all Microsoft file formats should be 
considered open standards. Microsoft should be allowed to add to and 
extend these standards, but all additions and extensions must be 
openly documented in a timely manner. There must be no hidden or 
secret APIs or file formats that only Microsoft or its partners are 
able to use. We must do this in order to promote competition in 
operating systems and applications. From what I've read about it, 
the existing settlement is too limited and full of loopholes to be 
effective in this regard. For example, it does not stipulate that 
Microsoft publish its file formats.
    The success of the Internet is a good example of the societal 
benefits that come from open software standards. Although my 
familiarity with this case is limited to what I've heard/read in the 
media, I feel that my 15 years of experience as a software engineer 
in the computer industry gives me a good basis for understanding at 
least the technical issues involved in this case.
    Thanks for hearing my opinion.
    Gary Von Colln



MTC-00019047

From: Jonathan A. George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft Monopoly Conduct Remedies-Mitigation Concerns
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    This case demands firm guarantees protecting Free Market 
competition from classic supression by monopolistic opportunism. In 
other words:
    1. As an existing monopoly Microsoft should be prevented from 
making exclusionary or secret contracts with customers. These 
contracts only serve to perpetuate unfair monopolization of market 
competition and supression of alternate sources of innovation. Today 
it is virtually impossible to buy a commodity PC from even one of 
the dominent vendors with a non-Microsoft Operating System without 
the unit cost of the Microsoft Operating system being included. 
Futhermore, Microsoft licenses even prevent selling a machine with 
their Operating System co-installed by the PC vendor even when all 
normal licencing costs have been paid.
    2. As an existing monopoly of Office Application and Operating 
Systems Microsoft should be required to publish comprehensive 
interface documentation on the standards their monopoly has created.

[[Page 26664]]

This documentation is needed for both commercial and non-commercial 
entities to be able to write competitive software able to run 
``MS-Windows'' software (i.e. Linux+Wine) or manage 
``MS-Windows'' networks (i.e. Linux+Samba). Leaving the 
door open for fees, delays, or restrictive licenses on this 
important information is a crushing blow to the struggling attempts 
to develop even limited options for consumers in the hope of re-
invigorating Free Market competition.
    In the American Democracy we ask our Government and Judiciary to 
protect our freedoms and opportunities, and I hope that the lure of 
autocratic wealth and power don't outweigh in interests of the 
people.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan A. George
    12310 Bar-X Drive
    Austin, TX 78727
    United States of America



MTC-00019048

From: Robert Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm writing to protest the proposed settlement of the United 
States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. It is my understanding that 
by Section III(J)(2), not-for-profit organizations are not 
considered in the settlement, as they are not considered businesses 
by Microsoft's criteria. But as I'm sure you are aware, internal 
Microsoft documents indicate that Microsoft feels that some of its 
bigger threats come from open-source projects such as GNU/Linux and 
SAMBA. To allow Microsoft to shut out projects such as these 
effectively limits Microsoft's competition and increase its market 
dominance, which clearly flies in the face of the goals of the 
antitrust lawsuit. Furthermore, many for-profit organizations which 
I am sure Microsoft would consider businesses, such as Red Hat, are 
value-added resellers of what are at root open-source projects. 
Section III(J)(2) would unduly harm these businesses, further 
limiting Microsoft's competition.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and I hope that 
you find it within yourself to reject Microsoft's self-serving 
settlement proposal.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Edwards



MTC-00019049

From: [nemesis]-(ryan underwood)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement is a bad 
idea. Without providing proper motivation for Microsoft to alter its 
business practices, the same crimes that got it into trouble in the 
first place will just continue to happen. The proposed punishment is 
not strict enough, and has some possible consequences that severely 
undermine it. Please reconsider. Thank you.
    Ryan Underwood
    4 Oak Hollow Drive
    Saint Peters MO 63376
    [email protected]



MTC-00019050

From: Kenny Pearce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    With regard to the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust case and the period of public comment required under the 
Tunney Act, I believe that the current proposition fails to address 
many issues in Microsoft's conduct. I would like to draw your 
attention to one such issue which, in addition to failing to be 
addressed by the proposed settlement was, to my knowledge, never 
addressed in court at all.
    Microsoft's license for it's Windows operating system prevents 
PC manufacturers from utilizing a capability of many pieces of 
software, including LILO, the LInux LOader, which is called 
``dual-boot''. This allows a PC to have two operating 
systems installed, and then ask the user which to use on startup. At 
one point, Microsoft threatened to revoke it's license agreement 
with certain PC manufacturers who sold computers pre-installed with 
a dual-boot between MS Windows and BeOS. This stifles competition in 
the operating system market terribly, and is probably part of the 
cause of BeOS's demise as a PC operating system.
    Additionally, many users of the Linux operating system on PCs 
use dual-boot technology to allow them to use Windows programs 
natively, as emulation is very slow on some systems, and does not 
work with all MS Windows programs. If manufacturers were allowed to 
sell dual-booting machines with Windows and Linux it would greatly 
encourage users who are discouraged by the Linux's reputaton of 
being difficult to install to try using it, increasing Linux's 
ability to compete. This would also allow companies to make a profit 
in the sale of pre-installed Linux PCs, which many believe is 
currently impossible.
    Because of Microsoft's actions, users who today wish to use 
Linux on a PC must buy what Microsoft terms a ``naked 
PC'', that is, one without any operating software, or else pay 
for an expensive ($100) license from Microsoft which will never be 
used. In the case of so-called ``naked PCs'', such systems 
are difficult to find and Microsoft is reputed to have offered 
computer retailers ``incentives'' for reporting the 
personal information of purchasers of these systems. Ostensibly, 
Microsoft believes that the only valid reason for purchasing a 
computer without an operating system would be to install one 
illegally in violation of the license agreement. Obviously, this is 
not the case and most likely these actions by Microsoft are intended 
to stifle the possible competitor they see in Linux.
    Please consider these issues in your upcoming decision.
    Thank you,
    Kenny Pearce
    (www.kennypearce.net)
    (quantum.kennypearce.net)
    ``We are all slaves. Freedom is merely the right to choose 
your master.''



MTC-00019051

From: Jerome Krough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed DOJ / microsoft settlement is mind numbingly biased 
towards microsoft. I had assumed that penalty meant some sort of 
punishment, judging from the proposed settlement microsoft has 
redefined penalty via their dictionary and wordprocessor. I wish to 
have the freedom to choose the software I wish to use not software I 
am forced to use because some pissant from Redmond, WA thinks he 
knows what is best for me.
    Sincerely,
    Jerome D. Krough



MTC-00019052

From: richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am worried about the following provisions of the proposed 
final judgement:
    III. Prohibited Conduct A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against 
an OEM by altering Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, 
or by withholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary 
Consideration (including but not limited to new versions of existing 
forms of non-monetary Consideration) from that OEM, because it is 
known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
    1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or 
licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform 
Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any 
Non-Microsoft Middleware;
    2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or 
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or
    Specifically, the word ``retaliate'' leaves some 
wiggle room for Microsoft and is not defined in the terms listed at 
the bottom of the PFJ. My Webster's Unabridged dictionary (1996) 
says that retaliate means ``To return the like for; to repay or 
requite by an act of the same kind; ``. Would, I don't know, 
buying the offending company, and firing everyone in it, be 
considered a retaliation, in the strict, dictionary sense of the 
word? Nope. And that's how Microsoft will read it too. As long as 
they do something else bad, that is not ``an act of the same 
kind'', they are free and clear to continue their monopolistic 
controls. This one word, really guts all of section III in regard to 
OEM's and ISV's (where retaliate is used again). This is nitpicking. 
But this is Microsoft, and nitpicking is all I have.
    Thank you for your time,
    Richard Still
    [email protected]



MTC-00019053

From: Will Dinyes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed for the Microsoft Anti-Trust case does 
little to prevent further

[[Page 26665]]

transgressions. I find it laughable that one of the proposed 
measures does not stipulate that the federal government itself cease 
use of products manufactured by a convicted monopoly unless said 
monopoly is disbanded. The government has in the past been able to 
effective disband a monopoly. Bell telephone and Standard Oil come 
to mind. The primary recourse that I would like to see is that, at 
the very least, Microsoft be prevented from purchasing or 
maintaining a controlling interest in any other company for a period 
of 10 years. Force them to license or develop technology as many 
other companies, such as Apple Computer, now do. Make them stand on 
their own merits, rather than allow them to continue to conscript 
the work done by other innovators in technology. Microsoft's 
tentacles reach well beyond the computer desktop. Many other 
enterprises are now being actively attacked by Microsoft, including 
video game consoles, internet service providers, and various forms 
of media delivery.
    I fear that the only possible way to prevent further anti-trust 
activities is to revoke Microsoft's charter entirely, seize the 
company's assets and redistribute them to companies working in the 
individual sectors of technology that have been irrevocably harmed 
by the actions that Microsoft has taken. This is, after all, what we 
do to other convicted felons. Microsoft's debt to society must be 
paid somehow. The proposed settlement does not do enough.
    William F. Dinyes
    6814 N. 10th Ave.
    Phoenix, AZ



MTC-00019054

From: George Chong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I vehemently oppose the settlement proposal with Microsoft.
    George Chong



MTC-00019055

From: JWard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    The current DOJ settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft needs real 
punishment! I frequently use computer applications in my duties as 
an Electrical Engineer. Microsofts Windows software has not improved 
much through the years. I have witnessed through the use of 
Microsoft's software how minipulative and anti-competitive their 
products are. The citizens of the U.S. need real software 
competition now. I am tired of losing control of my computer with 
each passing year.
    thank you,
    J. J. Ward



MTC-00019056

From: J.C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should 
become a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops 
to an acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's 
competitors is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft 
product lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jason Christopher
    Pittsburgh, PA



MTC-00019057

From: Phil Budne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software professional of 20 years I STRONGLY object to the 
proposed settlement in the Microsoft antritrust cast. Microsoft's 
predatory practices have been ruinous for software industry 
creativity and reliability. Microsoft has effectively squelched 
competition in most markets it has entered. I do not believe the 
settlement contains penalties or remedies commensurate with the 
level of anti-competitive activity carried out by Microsoft.
    Particular points:
    Microsoft's current ``middleware'' efforts 
(Microsoft.NET and C#) do not seem to be covered at all by the 
agreement.
    The definition of ``Windows Operating System Product'' 
seems to omit important Microsoft products.
    Microsoft continues to include licencing terms on it's software 
components which are clearly meant to suppress the emergence of 
Operating Systems or Middleware that might compete.



MTC-00019059

From: Matt Kazmierski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00019060

From: Marc Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the current settlement. Reason: The current 
settlement is not sufficient to prevent Microsoft from maintaining 
and extending its monopoly through illegal practices such as 
predatory pricing and predatory bundling.
    Marc
    Marc Campbell
    Predixis, CEO
    2031 S. Myrtle Ave.
    Monrovia, CA 91016
    626-256-3680



MTC-00019061

From: Homer Bartlett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why on earth would you believe that this time they're going to 
abide by the agreement they've signed when they didn't abide by the 
last one? This settlement agreement, even if they abide by it, 
leaves much of the enforcement to Microsoft, as in section 
III(J)(2): ``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, ...'' Which means that if Microsoft 
doesn't consider a particular software company a 
``authentic'' or ``viable'' business, they have 
the power to withhold the information that business needs to make 
their software work with Microsoft's operating system, effectively 
crushing them.
    Please reconsider this settlement and make sure it has some 
teeth.
    Thank you for your time.
    Homer Bartlett
    [email protected]
    www.homerbartlett.net



MTC-00019062

From: Wehser, Sven
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I think in view of the findings of the court the proposed 
settlement agreement is totally insufficient. It has found that MS 
has repeatedly misused its monopoly in order to hinder competition. 
The victim is the user who has to pay higher prices and suffer 
products that are filled with flaws because as a monopoly there is 
no compelling reason for MS to make really reliable products.
    I think it would be more than shameful to let MS get away with 
its conduct with such a lame settlement agreement.
    Sven Wehser



MTC-00019063

From: Matt Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just wanted you to know, I think the Microsoft settelment in 
it's current form is a bad idea.
    Matt



MTC-00019064

From: Brian Downey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft Settlement as it is is certainly a bad 
idea. Currently, I think the settlement would allow Microsoft to 
continue to expand their monopoly, and doesn't offer any real 
solutions from preventing the company from doing the same in the 
future. I think any anti-trust settlement should be effective enough 
to allow other companies in the same sector a fair chance at 
competition,

[[Page 26666]]

and the current settlement as it stands does not allow for this. I'd 
be glad to elaborate if required.
    Thanks,
    Brian Downey
    734-805-7797
    Redford, Michigan
    [email protected]



MTC-00019065

From: Glen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    Considering the original findings of fact by Hon. Judge Jackson, 
the current proposed measures against Microsoft Corp. actually do 
extremely little to correct the problem at hand: Microsoft 
Corporation has illegally built and maintained a monopoly on 
computer operating systems.
    The proposed measures cannot hope to stem Microsoft's aggressive 
tactics. Please consider an end to the monopoly when redrafting the 
measures to be taken.
    Thank you,
    Glen Canaday
    Clearwater, FL



MTC-00019066

From: Brian J. Brondel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to express my disapproval for the proposed 
settlement for the antitrust case against Microsoft. The settlement 
is totally inadequate and completely incongruous with the magnitude 
Microsoft's illegal actions outlined in the Court of Appeals ruling.
    The Appeals ruling calls for a remedy that will ``unfetter 
a market from anticompetitive conduct'', ``terminate the 
illegal monopoly'', ``deny the defendant the fruits of its 
statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no practices 
likely to result in monopolization in the future'' (section 
V.D., p. 99). The Proposed Final Judgement fails in all these 
respects. It fails to significantly impact Microsoft's behavior 
because of considerable exceptions, unnecessarily narrow 
definitions, and generally incomplete conduct remedies. Microsoft 
will easily circumvent the terms of the Proposed Judgement as it is 
currently written, to continue its illegal practices and harm the 
free market.
    I am further disturbed by the lack of any penalties for 
Microsoft's actions in the past. If you count up the extra profits 
Microsoft has garnered from its ill-gotten market share over the 
sales history of Windows, you find that Microsoft has acquired some 
$3-8 billion through its violation of the Sherman Antitrust 
Act. Clearly, even after expenses from court and remedies, 
Microsoft's offenses were remarkably profitable, while Microsoft's 
prosecutors suffered great expense in seeking out justice. Should 
Microsoft be allowed to profit at the United States'' expense, 
and at the expense of their laws? pOnce again, I'm very disappointed 
by the lack of force in the Proposed Final Judgement. I urge you to 
carefully review and modify the terms of the settlement before 
proceeding. For a more complete analysis of the Proposed Judgement, 
I refer you to Dan Kegel's ``On the Proposed Final Judgment in 
United States v. Microsoft.'' I'm certain that we can arrive at 
a settlement that's both effective and fair.
    Brian J. Brondel
    ``America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we 
falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed 
ourselves.''
    -Abraham Lincoln



MTC-00019067

From: Bert Han
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The currently proposed settlement restricts free trade. A true 
sign of monopolistic practices, is when companies no longer have to 
innovate, and force consumers to use products which lack quality.
    Microsoft's products consistantly are released in poor 
condition. The only time where Microsoft has to innovate is when 
they are under direct competition. And to help them win, they'll use 
illegal procedures to thwart their competitors. If you'll notice, 
after they ``win'' their products will start to, well, 
suck. pIf America is to truly stay ahead of the economic market, we 
need innovation, not bloated, anticompetitive actions. It won't help 
us to compete with emerging markets.
    Bert Han
    p.s. i update my webpage by wednesday every week. the address is 
http://www.geocities.com/berthan26



MTC-00019068

From: David Lannan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    David Lannan
    Programmer
    Pandemic Studios
    Unit 14/23 James Street
    Fortitude Valley
    QLD 4006
    ph. 3253 3381 x 21
    www.pandemicstudios.com



MTC-00019069

From: John Dougan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I write you to add my voice to the those opposing the current 
settlement proposal. As near as I can tell, it will have no 
perceptible effect on Microsoft's behavior, and violates the 
principles of transparency which are paramount in the Justice 
system. ``Justice must not only be done, but it should be seen 
to be done.''
    The object of the settlement should be to reduce or eliminate 
the occurance of illegal monopolistic behavior on the part of 
Microsoft, which should then make it possible for other corporations 
to enter the market without being blasted by the MS monopoly. The 
current proposal seems to be putting the cart before the horse, 
enforcing actions which should be the result of improved behavior by 
Microsoft. By being overly specific, this proposal leaves far too 
much room for Microsoft to engage in new infringing behavior.
    The proposal also lets's Microsoft decide too many of the later 
details, such as the terms of the agreements the TC (Technical 
Comittee) has to sign, and the definition of a protoco (See the 
SAMBA projects objectionsfor details). This is an open invitation to 
Microsoft, who has abused such loopholes before.
    The TC should be allowed to discuss the Committees actions with 
the public, without revealing MS trade secrets. However what 
constitutes an MS trade secret should be decided by a third party or 
the Trade Secrets acts and subjected to scrutiny.
    What I would like to see as a result of this proceedings is a 
Microsoft competing on a leveled playing field. I don't want to see 
the company destroyed, though breaking it up into viable pieces 
would not bother me. Four pieces come to mind: Applications 
including the web browser, Services, Operating Systems, and 
Hardware. But that is incidental. Please reconsider this dangerously 
flawed proposal.
    Regards,
    -john dougan
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019070

From: Michael W. Wernicki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Microsoft has a stranglehold on the US software market. Unless 
the government takes the appropriate action, the US citizen will end 
up paying to a monopoly, Microsoft. Please, don't allow this to 
happen.
    Michael W. Wernicki
    492 Liberty Avenue
    Jersey City, NJ 07307



MTC-00019071

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement of the recent Microsoft 
case is not sufficient. Particularly in regards to the OEM part of 
the settlement.
    I believe that OEM's should be able to put any OS they like on 
computers they sell without fear of reprisal from any company 
Microsoft or others. This should apply to OEMs of any size and 
Microsoft should not be able to ``kickback'' discounts to 
OEMs based on volumes of other Microsoft products sold.
    Thank you for your time.
    Hank Fisher Software Engineer
    [email protected]



MTC-00019072

From: Mark E. Nottage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow the miscarriage of justice that is 
represented by the proposed final judgement in the United States vs. 
Microsoft anti-trust to pass without modification.

[[Page 26667]]

    There are numerous technical loopholes in the restrictions that 
would be placed on Microsoft under said agreement. Additionally, 
there are numerous anti-competitive practices that Microsoft would 
be given carte blanche to continue as they please.
    Mark E. Nottage
    Berkeley, CA



MTC-00019073

From: Tom Zacharoff
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgment is NOT in the public interest
    *The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    *Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    *The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    *The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.
    *The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    *The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    *The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
    *The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    *Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    * Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once 
banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    * Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs- including regional ``white box'' OEMs which 
are historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    * The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Considering these problems, one must conclude that the Proposed 
Final Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence 
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. Therefore, the 
Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and should 
not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    For further clarification, please read this:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html



MTC-00019074

From: Mitch Kornelis
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has willfully committed monopolistic practices in the 
computer software industry. They have such a stronghold on the 
industry now that they can freely do as they choose. They have no 
competition left. Microsoft needs to be punished and not lightly.
    Thank you.
    M. Kornelis



MTC-00019075

From: Scott Lindsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I'm writing in oposition to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case.
    I do not believe that said settlement sufficiently redresses 
Microsoft's past abuse of its monopoly position, nor that it will 
prevent future abuses of that position.
    Scott Lindsey
    1517 SE Maple Ave
    Portland OR 97214



MTC-00019076

From: Timothy Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I truly believe that the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft 
is flawed and cannot bring about an acceptable resolution of 
Microsoft's monopoly position in the computer software market.
    Sincerly,
    Timothy L Smith
    13703 74th Ave N
    Maple Grove, MN 55311



MTC-00019077

From: Eric Ludlum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to express my great dissatisfaction with the 
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust 
lawsuit. The settlement neither restores balance to the markets 
which Microsoft has illegally monopolized over the past 20 years nor 
imposes punitive measures commensurate to the public cost of the 
company's criminal activities.
    Only by striving to achieve the following goals will the 
settlement serve justice:
    1. The disassembly of Microsoft's ability to dominate markets 
through its command of the computer desktop.
    2. The return of illegally gained profits to the affected 
markets and their participants-to Microsoft's consumers and 
competitors.
    I encourage those dealing with this matter on the behalf of the 
United States of America to re-consider the settlement, to have 
strength and fight harder for what is right.
    Thank you for your time in considering my input,
    Eric Ludlum
    President Core77, Inc.
    http://www.core77.com



MTC-00019078

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments about the proposed Microsoft settlement:
    I'm deeply conserned about the powers Microsoft has to force 
America and the world to use its software and protocols within its 
operating system. I feel that the only way to allow other operating 
systems and software to compete with Microsoft is to severely 
restrict the ability of Microsoft operating systems to force/
influence users to also use other Microsoft software. The law must 
be clear in dictating this so that there is no way to skirt around 
the imposed settlement. The only good solution that I have heard 
that would achieve this consumer-friendly settlement is a split of 
the company into two

[[Page 26668]]

separate companies. It is very important to note that this would NOT 
have a large financial impact on Microsoft (certainly no more than 
the gains Microsoft has made through its monopoly already), and 
would still allow both the operating systems and applications 
divisions of Microsoft to ``innovate'' independently. Of 
course, this simple settlement would give all companies access to 
the same Microsoft operating system information that the future 
Microsoft applications divisions would have, thereby allowing all 
companies to compete more fairly to create the best products.
    Thank you- I strongly recommend a split of Microsoft's operating 
systems and applications divisions.
    Scott Dylewski, Ph.D.
    Networking Solutions Division
    Agilent Technologies
    Phone: (408) 435-4085
    [email protected]
    3036 Warrington Ave
    San Jose, CA 95127
    [email protected]



MTC-00019079

From: Sam Kerner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to express my disappointment in the proposed 
outcome of the US DOJ's case against microsoft. I do not see how the 
proposed settlement solves the problem of microsoft's flagrant 
abuses of it's monopoly power. Specifically, I believe a panel of 
people monitoring microsoft's behavior will be of no consequence. 
Microsoft entered a consent decree that was supposed to curtail it's 
behavior, but it was ignored. They have shown that if they wish to 
violate an agreement with the DOJ, they are willing to go to court 
to get out of complying with it. What makes anyone think they will 
not do the same thing if the monitoring panel's judgment is not to 
their liking?
    For the DOJ to have taken this case to the point where microsoft 
has been found guilty and then settle with a remedy that is as weak 
as the one proposed is shameful. An effective remedy would have 
meant unprecedented opportunity for the computer industry, as 
companies would no longer be forced to comply with microsoft's anti-
competitive contracts and undocumented APIs. If this settlement goes 
through, the computer industry will continue to be in the doldrums, 
and brilliant ideas that could have made our lives better and our 
economy stronger will continue to be crushed by the anticompetitive 
steamroller that is an unfettered monopolist, made more bold and 
dangerous by the knowledge that the laws of the united states do not 
apply to it.
    Sam Kerner



MTC-00019080

From: Matei Ripeanu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:39pm
Subject: FW: [CS] Last day to influence MS case: Monday morning 28 
Jan
    i DO NOT LIKE THE SETTLEMENT. BE TOUGH!
    -MATEI



MTC-00019081

From: Jeff Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the proposed settlement is in the best 
interest of all parties concerned. The proposed settlement deals 
with the pertinent issues in a way that allows Microsoft to continue 
as a viable business entity, while allowing others the opportunity 
to compete. More stringent penalties would not maintain that 
balance, and would injure the public without means to repair that 
damage.
    Jeffrey Wilson
    909 Buckboard Blvd.
    Papillion, Ne 68046



MTC-00019082

From: Max Kushner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea. It is not fair to those 
Microsoft has injured and it does little to remedy the situation.
    Max Kushner



MTC-00019083

From: Jeff Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case.
    The current judgement calls for very limited restriction of 
Microsoft's actions, actions which are the subject of the suit and 
which have been found to be in violation of US anti-trust law by a 
federal district court and a federal appeals court.
    Those actions have severely hindered competition in the computer 
software industry. Any settlement must aggressively address the 
reestablishment of competition in this important and crippled 
industry.
    The keys to software competition are the API's and file formats 
used by Windows operating systems and productivity software. Without 
access to those sources of Microsoft's monolopoly, other companies 
cannot effectively compete.
    A settlement which restores competition to computer software 
will be concerned primarily with:
    * enforcing equal and open access to the W32 APIs and Microsoft 
Office file formats (standardization, publishing, and documentation)
    * and the right of competitors to sell compatible operating 
system and productivity products based on those APIs and file 
formats.
    A secondary concern with the PFJ is language which addresses 
competing ``commercial'' vendors. The fear of many is that 
this language fails to protect not-for-profit software projects from 
anti-competitive behavior. As not-for-profit computing has been 
equally harmed by Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, the PFS 
must explicitly grant not-for-profits equal remedy and protection.
    Finally, it is appropriate that the company be pushed for its 
illegal activity with fines. Fines should be set as a reasonable 
percentage of Microsoft profit for the period since the company 
violated its prior consent decree with the court to the present.
    Thank you for considering my concerns,
    Jeffrey Davis, Electronic Resources Librarian
    San Diego Public Library
    (619) 238-6613
    [email protected]



MTC-00019084

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Proposed settlement stinks.



MTC-00019085

From: Suresh Bazaj
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I would like to share with you my experience in dealing with 
Microsoft products for the last 20 years. My first experience with 
Microsoft products was in the early 80's when I purchased a Radio 
Shack PC with DOS. Overall, it was an OK product until I purchased 
my first Apple Macintosh in 1985. What a world of difference. For 
the next 11 years (until 1996), I only purchased Apple Macintosh due 
to its ease of use. I still remember when I bought the first 
Macintosh Performa for my 11 year old in 1995. We got home from the 
store around 10 PM. I was tired, yet my son insisted that I help him 
unpack and set the computer on his desk. He took care of the rest 
and had fun with it for many hours while I was sound asleep. My 
children used the computer for more than 5 years.
    Unfortunately, my options to buy anything but Microsoft were 
severely restricted as the 90's rolled along. So, I finally broke 
down and bought a Windows ``98 PC in 1999. I was glad that I 
did not have to live through the torture of going through many 
versions of Windows (1.x, 2.x, 3.x, Windows ``95 and then 
Windows ``98). While it does not do everything that I can do on 
a Macintosh, it has been a reasonably stable system.
    So, I now have 3 WIN ``98 laptops and one WIN ``98 
desktop in my household- essentially every member of the house 
has his/her own PC. We are all reasonably OK with and are able to do 
most of what we need to do. However, here is my FRUSTRATION. As a 
monopoly, Microsoft feels that it can whip out a new product 
whenever it wants to and stop supporting the existing product. Since 
I bought my first WIN ``98 PC, there has been WIN 2000 (several 
versions of it), WINDOWS ME (in 2001) and now WINDOWS XP (in 2002). 
Most (if not all) these new products require new hardware

[[Page 26669]]

and often new application software, in addition to the new Operating 
System. Well, I just cannot afford to throw fully functional and 
useful machines in the trash can every year. How would you feel if 
the plumbing and electricity industry followed the same model. You 
have a leaky faucet or fused bulb. Well, you better upgrade to 
entirely new plumbing and electrical system in the house since last 
years model is no longer in production and supported. I hope you get 
the point. I urge to reject the DOJ settlement that does not do 
anything to foster competition and help the consumers.
    Respectfully,
    Suresh C. Bazaj
    40792 Tirso Street
    Fremont CA 94539



MTC-00019086

From: Michael J. Hauan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just my two cents-
    I am a physician, an ethicist, and an informaticist. I welcomed 
the courts'' conclusion that Microsoft has abused its monopoly 
position.
    I am dismayed that the Justice Department is not using the clear 
conclusions of law to take substantive steps in protecting both all 
consumers and producers of potentially competitive products. In 
particular, the proposed settlement provides inadequate recourse for 
those (e.g., in open-source software development projects) that 
Microsoft doesn't consider legitimate businesses. It seems Microsoft 
can refuse them access to APIs and other important operating system 
information on its own recognizance. Given their record of flagrant 
violation of both the spirit and letter of the law, this is 
indefensible.
    I oppose the proposed settlement vehemently.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Hauan, MD, MPH, MTS, MA



MTC-00019087

From: Grunloh, Robert
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft is 
essentially a sellout, and would urge the Court to toss it out and 
follow some of the recommendations of the 9 remaining States.
    I've worked in the computer field for 10 years, starting as a 
supporter of Microsoft and gradually becoming disenchanted as I saw 
them stifle, control, buy, or kill numerous innovative products and 
technologies over the years. Working in this field under Microsoft's 
growing control of all software, indirectly much hardware, and soon 
all access points to the Internet (our present-day 
``commons'') is increasingly oppressive. They are like a 
cancer, wanting control, growth and marketshare at all costs, yet 
producing only the minimal bland product in return. Publicly-funded 
agencies each year funnel millions of dollars to them because they 
have no good alternatives, and MS software is licensed at higher 
cost, and more restrictively, each year even as hardware gets 
cheaper and cheaper (there is competition in the hardware business, 
still).
    Please enforce the law and give them a meaningful punishment. 
Look back to their skill at finding loopholes in the first consent 
agreement under Judge Sporkin, and then take a fresh look at the 
current proposal.
    Thanks.
    Robert Grunloh
    Digital Library Initiatives Group,
    University of Arizona Library
    Tucson, Arizona
    (520) 621-2502
    speaking for myself, not my employer



MTC-00019088

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am absolutely against the Microsoft Antitrust case settlement. 
It is not even a wrist slap to biggest antitrust violator of our 
time! More likely, it is an invitation to keep on plundering and 
whacking competition in the most important marketplace of our times, 
the information marketplace. Please do the right thing and 
reconsider this proposed settlement. --
    Tom Robinson
    [email protected]



MTC-00019089

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has refused to allow the application Office to be used 
on the Linux operating system.
    Microsoft knows that this application is dominant and by 
refusing to allow this application to be ported to Linux knows that 
the persons needing this application are prevented from using the 
Linus operating system. Microsoft is convicted of being a 
monopolist. Punishment should be exacted. Requiring that the Office 
application be ported to Linux is a means of divesting Microsoft 
from their monopoly on the desktop tied to their operating system.
    Please join the states that have ask of Microsoft to port the 
Office application to Linux and make this a condition of the 
settlement.
    Steven Wallace
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019090

From: Oded Helman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well I'll be short, I think that after the years os trial put 
into the fact that Microsoft broke the law, the settlement that was 
achieved is so vague that it is quite probable that that Microsoft 
will continue to do what they have been doing even during when the 
Trial was going on, and that's bullying the Computer Industry to 
have it their way, it's not the fact that they bundled applications 
with their OS, but the fact that they terrorize Hardware 
Manufactures and even competing platforms (i.e. Apple) to include 
their software and not include other software which might be better 
or face the punishment of not getting Microsoft software at all. For 
example Microsoft threatening Apple to include only Internet 
Explorer and not Netscape Communicator or Microsoft will stop 
developing Office for the Mac. Another example is that Apple uses 
their OS power to make 3rd party Apps to malfunction, for example 
competing apps to Office which Microsoft even have a bigger monopoly 
then in the OS business, or causing Quicktime to malfunction so 
people will use Windows Media Player and the list goes on.
    I don't know what is the right answer, maybe splitting the 
company to 2, 3, more other companies which are not allowed to have 
the same Executives, board of directors and main share holders is 
the answer, maybe the answer is not allowing by law to Microsoft 
executives, to be a part of Microsoft anymore, make them sell all 
their stock and they are not to be allowed to work for the Company, 
maybe the solution is to not allow the Microsoft Executives to be 
part of the Computer Industry world anymore... what I am sure of 
that the settlement that says Microsoft promises to behave and not 
to be punished is not the answer, because if that will be the case 
we will be back at this point in 5-10 years.



MTC-00019091

From: Kiani, Tal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No to the proposed settlement! The public will not be served if 
one company is allowed to have total control over our information 
infrastructure.
    The current proposal for the Microsoft settlement will not 
prevent Microsoft from staying a monopoly in the computer industry 
and from continuing to abuse and extend this monopoly. Quite simply, 
the punishment is not economically severe enough for it to affect 
Microsoft's behavior.
    There is no incentive for them to change the behaviors that led 
to the court's conclusion in the Findings of Fact that they have 
abused their monopoly powers and have ignored the previous remedies 
from the earlier Consent Decree. They will most likely ignore or 
circumvent the presently proposed settlement because it will be 
cheaper for them in the long run to litigate for years and then 
settle with the government once their competitors have been unfairly 
driven out of business and they have expanded their monopoly into 
new areas. Please note that this is not conjecture-this is exactly 
what they did after the last Consent Decree!
    Frankly, its hard to blame Microsoft for choosing this route 
because it makes the most economic sense-it is up to the 
government to fashion a remedy that addresses past harm and 
penalizes Microsoft severely enough for past wrongs so that it will 
make economic sense for Microsoft to behave properly in the 
future-the threat of severe punishment will outweigh the 
potential gain from abusing their monopoly powers.
    A proper remedy should force Microsoft to release their file 
formats for Office and Internet Explorer because these are now

[[Page 26670]]

industry standards, as well as require them to releases source code 
and protocols that will allow other companies to compete with them. 
Additionally there must be substantial financial penalties imposed 
(think 10's of Billions of dollars) in order to redress past 
financial harm they have caused to many companies in the industry. 
Anything less is an effect slap on the wrist, because of the 100s of 
billions of dollars of ill-gotten rewards they have enjoyed. If you 
only fine them 1 billion, they will continue with their monopolistic 
ways that let them make 10-100 times that- why shouldn't they? 
We need penalties that make a difference to Microsoft management.
    The remedy will not be a simple proposition, but that should not 
be expected in a case of this magnitude, and of this much 
importance. We are all counting on you to do the right thing for the 
good of our society.
    Thanks in advance!
    Tal Kiani
    DRS Sensor Systems, Inc.
    3500 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, CA 90503
    Phone (310) 750-3257 Fax (310) 750-3203
    [email protected]



MTC-00019092

From: Craig I. Hagan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to comment on the judgement I've read at http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm:
    [1] While this judgement, if it had been issued some years ago, 
would probably have prevented the current set of problems involving 
microsoft and the computer industry, I don't see that this judgement 
will repair the damage which has been done.
    [2] While this judgment addresses some issues relevant to OEMS, 
ISV/IHV's, IAP/ICP's and End Users, it does not address issues of 
critical significance to software developers.
    When developing software, one must make many choices and 
decisions with long-lasting consequences. In general, this means 
that once a decision has been made it is not changed without good 
reason. Microsoft's unlawful actions mean that there have been good 
economic reasons to make development decisions which would otherwise 
violate good design practices.
    Resolving this issue will require documentation which is not 
generally available (and which may not exist) about Microsoft's 
operating system. It will also require dealing with issues raised by 
existing contracts and business arrangements with respect to 
software development tools and development environments. It will 
also require dealing with changes in software oriented training and 
business practices-changes which have been necessary for a 
business to survive in the face of Microsoft's market dominance.
    Software developers are the people who are technically literate 
in computer languages and who are responsible for creating 
applications which must run on an operating system. The proposed 
remedy does not address software development needs in supporting 
competitive operating systems.
    Failing to address the needs of software developers means this 
judgement cannot remove the barriers which microsoft has put in 
place with its unlawful actions. As software developers provide the 
software which which End Users, IAP/ICP's, ISV/IHV's, and OEMS, use 
on an operating system, it's extremely unlikely that any of these 
groups will experience economic relief from this judgement.
    I recommend this judgement be rejected in favor of one which 
will additionally provide remedies for software developers who 
develop software for Microsoft and/or non-Microsoft operating 
systems.



MTC-00019093

From: pcameron@ CrescentNetworks.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:46pm
Subject: Comments on settlement in Microsoft antitrust case
    Your Honor,
    I am a computer software professional with 30 years experience. 
I live in Winchester MA.
    The software industry has been suffering through lack of 
competition for a long time now. Without choice there is little need 
for innovation. I am very disturbed that even though many hardware 
companies compete to make the hardware better and less expensive. 
There is effectively one operating system and application software 
company, Microsoft, and they have become less and less willing to 
advance technology unless they see a competitor. They are, however, 
always willing to increase price by more than inflation from release 
to release. It is very difficult to purchase a non-Apple desktop or 
laptop system without also purchasing a Microsoft operating system. 
There is effectively no choice.
    What we have now is an industry that has grown stagnant and a 
company, Microsoft, that has grown rich. I am sure that business and 
economics professionals can lay out the damage to the industry in 
great detail. So I won't even try.
    I appeal to you to return competition to the software industry 
and to return the monopoly profits to the consumers. Laws have been 
broken and people have suffered. Please find a way to prevent 
further unlawful behavior and find a way to compensate victims.
    I offer some ideas that I think would work.
    1) Remove the current officers, executives and board of 
directors of Microsoft and render thier stock nonvoting. Prevent 
them from participating in the computing industry in any capacity 
for at least 5 years.
    2) Divide the company into perhaps 4 new companies. Each company 
would be the largest in its business sector and would enjoy the 
strength that comes with its size. It would not, however, enjoy a 
monopoly in that sector:
    a) Operating systems, tools and utilities (include the browser)
    b) Application software-office suites etc.
    c) Internet services (no software development or sales, no 
hardware product sales)
    d) Hardware-xbox game console, keyboards, mice, internet 
appliances, set top boxes, etc.-products with embedded 
software only, no services.
    3) Make all file formats and communications protocols public 
standards that may be implemented by anyone without royalty and do 
not permit future private protocols and file formats.
    4) Vacate all Microsoft contracts that limit a companies ability 
to deal with other companies. E.g., prevents a hardware OEM from 
selling some systems with non-Microsoft OS or even dual boot systems 
or prevents a software company from porting software products to 
other systems.
    5) Require Microsoft to rebate all their monopoly derived profit 
directly back to consumers. Double the amount as a damages. There is 
a lot at stake here. There are few opportunities to effectively deal 
with monopoly behavior. This is an opportunity to get competition 
back into the software industry and still permit an important and 
major corporation, Microsoft, to participate as a significant force. 
Everyone, even Microsoft, will win if you can reestablish 
competition and prevent future unlawful behavior.
    With the utmost respect for yourself and our judicial system,
    Most sincerely,
    Philip Cameron
    3 Fletcher St.
    Winchester MA 01890
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019094

From: Cedar McKay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't settle with microsoft without extracting meaningful 
and severe concessions. I and all other consumers have been harmed 
by by microsoft's brutal anticompetitive practices. Push for a harsh 
penalty.
    John McKay
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00019095

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case Settlement
    Your Honor,
    Thank you for allowing public comment on the settlement of this 
case. I, as many professionals in the Silicon Valley, have been 
closely watching the Microsoft vs. United States anti-trust suit. I 
do not believe the proposed settlement goes far enough to punish 
Microsoft for their predatory and anti competitive behaviors.
    Microsoft has shown no change in attitude or corporate policy to 
alter its monopolistic practices. The release of Windows XP in its 
current configuration is proof of their arrogance and disregard for 
the law. They behave as if the judgment against them has no meaning 
or is nothing more than an unwarranted scolding.
    Before I was consultant I was an employee of General Electric 
and Hewlett Packard. These two companies always stressed the 
importance of the law and went to great lengths to insure they and 
their employees were not engaging in anti competitive

[[Page 26671]]

practices and were operating within the guidelines of the law. If 
there was an activity within these companies that gave the slightest 
outward appearance that it might be viewed as being questionable in 
the eyes of the law it was immediately addressed. I have been 
appalled at the apparent lack of any similar practice within 
Microsoft.
    I believe the original breakup order was the correct remedy for 
this case. In fact it may not have gone far enough. A break up of 
the company into three business units, one for operating systems, 
one for Internet applications and the last for business applications 
may eventually be needed before the decade is over.
    There is a saying amongst my colleagues here in Silicon Valley 
that summarizes the power Microsoft wields in the computing business 
world. ``Bring up the Windows OS and open any application, 
behind any button you push there is a dead company.''
    Respectfully,
    Lawrence C. Scheer
    Owner Larry Scheer Consulting
    643 Dorothy Ave.,
    San Jose CA 95125
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019096

From: chun fong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not let MicroSoft get off the hook so easily. They have 
gained billions of dollars for selling crappy substandard software 
to masses who don't know anything about computing. Many companies 
from IBM, Apple, Sun, SGI, commodore, Be, Netscape and others have 
been victimized by Microsoft and Intel. Many technologies that could 
have been, have been shut out by Microsoft and Intel.
    Don't let companies get off easily for the ``sake of 
technology''. Don't let consumers suffer from lack of choices 
just for the microsoft's ``right to innovate''. Especially 
when Microsoft have stiffled every competitor's innovation and 
resources. Microsoft has hurt everybody else in order for them to 
gain money, power and influence. Which is it? The sake for 
technology or the sake of the consumers like you and me???
    CHF



MTC-00019097

From: Rick Buford
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Unless you're planning on 
letting all thieves run free in the street.... Rick 
Buford-Systems Administrator, Infrastructure
    [email protected]
    (573)875-2662 X:3015
    CARFAX, Inc
    409 Vandiver Columbia, MO 65202
    
    ``I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so 
unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that 
they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.''-Kee 
Hinckley



MTC-00019098

From: Eric McGough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under a law known as the Tunney Act, the court is required to 
consider public commentary before accepting any settlement.
    I would like to voice my concern this accepting this settlement 
is does not solve the core problem. Microsoft is a monopoly and uses 
its power to stifle competition.
    The current settlement is un-acceptable.
    Eric McGough
    CEO, RandomCube, Inc.



MTC-00019099

From: Chris McKenzie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft Alone! Microsoft has done nothing but 
consistently produce a wonderful product and sell it at an 
affordable price. That is by its nature, competitive. That they GAVE 
AWAY an internet browser does not damage consumers-we now get 
for free what we once had to pay for. They offer huge discounts on 
their operating system licenses to retailers that only sell the 
Microsoft OS. Where I come from this is simply called GOOD 
MARKETING! This lawsuit was drummed up by ``competitors'' 
that want to cripple Microsoft since they are unable to compete on 
their own.
    Sincerely,
    Chris McKenzie
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019100

From: Rick Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
 Mr. Rick Bradley, CTO
EastCore, Inc.
517 E. Taylor
Harlingen, TX 78550
January 23, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To whom it may concern:
    As a software developer with over a decade of professional 
experience I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment 
(hereafter ``PFJ'') in the United States v. Microsoft 
case.
    The PFJ permits Microsoft's exclusionary practices to continue, 
allows Microsoft to maintain its monopoly through continued 
protection of the substantial barrier to entry to the operating 
systems market for Intel-compatible computers (the 
``Applications Barrier to Entry''), and allows for 
Microsoft's use of its customary exclusionary licensing regime to 
restrict the actions of OEM and independent software vendors (ISVs). 
This reality is in direct contrast with the intent of the PFJ, which 
the Court of Appeals states ``must seek to ``unfetter a 
market from anticompetitive conduct'', to ``terminate the 
illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future'' (section V.D., p. 99). 
Further we musk ask whether the PFJ is in the public interest.
    Below I enumerate some of the many serious problems with the 
PFJ.
-The PFJ fails to prevent Microsoft from raising or 
maintaining artificial barriers (in many cases these artificial 
barriers have already been erected) against non-Microsoft operating 
systems which implement the APIs and/or middleware necessary to run 
application programs written for Windows. As was discussed in the 
Findings of Fact, competing operating systems, such as Linux with 
its ``Wine'' compatibility layer, could leverage an 
interoperable version of the Windows APIs to run software written 
for Windows and thereby lower the Applications Barrier to Entry.
-The PFJ omits Microsoft Office, Microsoft Outlook, 
Microsoft.Net and C# from the definition of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product''. These are the most significant middleware 
components in Microsoft's stable of products. Their absence in this 
definition exposes a fundamental flaw in the PFJ's middleware-
related provisions.
-The overly narrow PFJ definitions of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' and ``API'' means that many 
important APIs would remain undocumented, thereby eliminating the 
ability of third parties to interoperate with software written for 
Windows or to compete with Windows due to the Applications Barrier 
to Entry.
-The PFJ includes no requirement for documentation of 
Microsoft file formats, which were shown in the Findings of Fact to 
compromise a significant part of the Applications Barrier to Entry. 
Microsoft regularly changes proprietary file formats making 
interoperability impossible and further raising the Applications 
Barrier to Entry for competitors.
-The PFJ does not require Microsoft to disclose which patents 
protect the various Windows APIs, thus making it impossible for 
consumers, ISVs, and competitors to determine whether a competing 
operating system or middleware implementation infringes Microsoft 
patents. This state of affairs helps Microsoft maintain the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
-Under the terms of the PFJ Microsoft is allowed to retaliate 
against OEMs who ship Personal Computers which contain a competing 
Microsoft operating system but no Microsoft operating system.
-The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against smaller OEMs 
who offer Personal Computers with competing software installed. The 
large body of ``white box'' OEMs, as well as other brand-
name small OEMs, serve a critical function in the market for server 
systems where potential Microsoft competitors such as Linux and 
FreeBSD have the best chance of making headway.
-The PFJ fails to curb Microsoft's use of unconscionable and/
or exclusionary End-User License Agreements (EULAs). Microsoft uses 
these EULAs to prohibit the use of certain services and applications 
on Microsoft-compatible operating systems.

[[Page 26672]]

-The PFJ does nothing to address intentional incompatibilities 
introduced by Microsoft to exclude competitors (e.g., Caldera) from 
the operating systems market.
-Under the terms of the PFJ enforcement is left to the legal 
system, while the Technical Committee has too little power to 
effectively oversee future Microsoft anti-competitive practices.
-Oversight of Microsoft practices is remanded to a small group 
whose makeup is at least equally determined by Microsoft. Microsoft 
has been found to be in violation of anti-trust law, and yet has 
been allowed to construct the PFJ enforcement terms to ensure that 
the Technical Committee will be ineffective in its oversight role. 
The proposal as negotiated does little to change the illegal 
behavior of which Microsoft has been convicted, nor does it address 
the multitude of anticompetitive abuses committed since the issuance 
of the Findings of Fact. The PFJ amounts to a wrist-slap which will 
fail to materially alter Microsoft's behavior, promote competition, 
or penalize Microsoft for past transgressions. While this proposal 
is fundamentally flawed, any acceptable proposal must additionally 
perform the following functions:
-restrict Microsoft from retaliating against all OEMs, ISVs, 
Internet Access Providers (IAPs), and competitors
-define operating system and middleware components in such a 
manner as to correspond to the reality regarding the importance of 
high-profile components in Microsoft's current and future plans
-require Microsoft to disclose, sufficiently in advance to 
allow middleware vendors and interoperators to reasonably implement 
necessary compatibility changes, complete documentation on Microsoft 
APIs, file formats, and patent protection information for all 
versions of the Windows operating system and all Windows middleware 
components
-prohibit Microsoft from implementing incompatibilities 
designed to keep its applications and services from being run or 
accessed on competing operating systems.
-provide oversight which is more transparent to regulators and 
consumers
-provide an oversight body which has more human and technical 
resources, and bar Microsoft from influencing the make-up of the 
body.
    The Proposed Final Judgment in the United States v. Microsoft 
case is fundamentally flawed and does little to ``unfetter 
[the] market from anticompetitive conduct'', fails to terminate 
Microsoft's illegal monopoly, and preserves intact countless 
practices which will maintain and extend the Microsoft monopoly in 
the future.
    This proposal is most definitely not in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Bradley



MTC-00019101

From: David Merrill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I hold a doctorate in Computer Science, and have been deeply 
involved in the software industry since its very beginnings in about 
1983. I have been a user of Microsoft operating systems and 
application software for nearly 20 years now, and I have followed 
the industry very closely, especially Microsoft's unscrupulous and 
illegal activities against competitors.
    This industry used to be vibrant, exciting, and dynamic. New and 
innovative products entered the market constantly, and there was 
lively competition in all product markets. Once Microsoft started 
signing exclusive deals with OEMs, that market started to die, and 
today it exists only in the UNIX and Linux markets.
    I very much appreciate that the DOJ took on antitrust 
proceedings against Microsoft. After watching one competitor after 
another run out of the market by using OEMs, APIs and protocols as 
weapons, I hoped that finally the company would be forced to compete 
solely on the merits of its software, which alone are enough for it 
to maintain a strong position in the market-but not a monpoly.
    Unfortunately, the proposed settlement, while it does address 
some anticompetitive behavior, does little to stop the primary 
weapons which Microsoft uses. The language and definitions are so 
narrow in scope that they would be easy for any competent software 
engineer to work around. I know I certainly could, and I am sure 
that Microsoft has engineers equally as talented.
    It has ``loophole'' written all over it. Here are just 
a few: There is no provision for making access to .NET and other 
future services open-only Windows itself. In the next 
generation of its software, Windows will no longer be the lynchpin, 
but instead will be replaced by .NET as the 
``chokepoint''. Any settlement which does not include 
future, even currently unannounced products is insufficient. 
Otherwise, all it takes is a single new piece of software, upon 
which other software is made to rely in the most trivial way, and 
we're back where we started.
    The only API Microsoft is force to make public is the 
``Windows API'', and only that small part of the API which 
is used by middleware. That doesn't include many of the important 
parts of the API, which would be required to develop Office 
software, network protocols, and multimedia, such as installation 
routines, access to the Windows Registry, etc. There is no 
requirement that file formats be documented, yet they are the 
primary way Microsoft maintains its monopoly in Office software. 
This is such a glaring omission I don't understand how it could have 
been overlooked, but apparently it was.
    There is no requirement that any information be shared with 
nonprofit and volunteer organizations such as the developers of 
Linux, even though Linux is Microsoft's strongest potential 
competitor. This alone is a huge, gaping loophole.
    The latest versions of some Microsoft software carry EULAs (End 
User License Agreements) which specifically state that they cannot 
be run on other operating systems than Windows. Could they be more 
brazen? And yet there is nothing in the agreement which prevents 
this-nor has the DOJ addressed the issue despite its prima 
facie anticompetitive nature. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of 
other ways, large and small, that Microsoft threatens and bullies 
anyone else who tries to enter their markets, few of which are 
addressed in the agreement. These are but a few. A much longer list 
is contained in the longer document by Dan Kegel, a software 
engineer with as much time in the industry as I have.
    I wholly endorse, support, and concur with his views, which have 
also been submitted for your review.
    Regards,
    David C. Merrill
    Linux Documentation Project
    Collection Editor & Coordinator
    http://www.lupercalia.net
    [email protected]
    http://www.linuxdoc.org



MTC-00019102

From: Cinnater, William (Contractor)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    William Cinnater



MTC-00019103

From: J B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to express my concern to you regarding the 
settlement with Microsoft. I feel betrayed by the government in this 
case. How you could completly screw up a case like this is beyond me 
but you did it. I hope your

[[Page 26673]]

prepared for the future economy via Microsoft because it is not 
going to be pretty.



MTC-00019104

From: Jeff Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case.
    The current judgment calls for very limited restriction of 
Microsoft's actions, actions which are the subject of the suit and 
which have been found to be in violation of US anti-trust law by a 
federal district court and a federal appeals court.
    Those actions have severely hindered competition in the computer 
software industry. Any settlement must aggressively address the 
reestablishment of competition in this important and crippled 
industry.
    The keys to software competition are the API's and file formats 
used by Windows operating systems and productivity software. Without 
access to those sources of Microsoft's monopoly, other companies 
cannot effectively compete.
    A settlement which restores competition to computer software 
will be concerned primarily with:
-enforcing equal and open access to the W32 APIs and Microsoft 
Office file formats (standardization, publishing, and documentation)
-and the right of competitors to sell compatible operating 
system and productivity products based on those APIs and file 
formats.
    A secondary concern with the PFJ is language which addresses 
competing ``commercial'' vendors. The fear of many is that 
this language fails to protect not-for-profit software projects from 
anti-competitive behavior. As not-for-profit computing has been 
equally harmed by Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, the PFS 
must explicitly grant not-for-profits equal remedy and protection.
    Finally, it is appropriate that the company be punished for its 
illegal activity with fines. Fines should be set as a reasonable 
percentage of Microsoft profit for the period since the company 
violated its prior consent decree with the court to the present.
    Thank you for considering my concerns,
    Jeffrey Davis, Electronic Resources Librarian
    San Diego Public Library
    (619) 238-6613
    [email protected]



MTC-00019105

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement regarding the 
monopolistic practices of the Microsoft Corporation. It will not 
discourage Microsoft from further abuse of its monopoly and does 
nothing to protect consumers. Please find another remedy that will 
be able to both discourage more abuses and punish Microsoft for past 
offenses.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Hayslip



MTC-00019106

From: Jerry L. Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not forget the consumer is the one who has been hurt 
the most. Just force Microsoft to publish all Windows API's. That 
will put all software publishers on a level playing field and the 
resulting competition will drive down prices. Anti-trust is about 
keeping markets competitive, not about protecting Microsoft or 
protecting Microsoft's competitors.
    Jerry L. Rogers
    President
    Banc Technologies Group, Inc.
    214.349.7150



MTC-00019107

From: Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a joke. It's insulting to even call 
it a settlement. That's about as polite about it as I can be.



MTC-00019108

From: James Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing in response to the request for comments in the 
USDOJ vs Microsoft case, in accordance with the Tunney act I ask 
that such a settlement be rejected.
    I have read the proposed final judgment. Since I am not a 
lawyer, I can't claim to have a full understanding of it's contents. 
It seems however that it provides very little in the way of actual 
penalties against Microsoft or guarantees that Microsoft will not 
continue to do business in the same manner that they always have. In 
fact the proposed final judgment seems to be nothing more than the 
proverbial ``slap-on-the-wrist''. In fact, it appears more 
like something Microsoft themselves wrote instead of any form of 
real penalties as should be proposed when someone has BROKEN THE 
LAW.
    I urge you to instead consider the alternate proposed final 
judgment submitted by the states, including my home state of Kansas, 
that have rejected the USDOJ proposed final judgment. Their proposal 
provides for real penalties and will discourage Microsoft from 
continuing with the business practices that they've used up to this 
point...even after the last anti-trust case against them was 
settled. This will provide for a fair and competitive market for all 
consumers who buy and use computer products.
    Sincerely,
    James P. Kennedy
    Programmer/Systems Administrator
    Standard Beverage Corporation
    Lawrence, Kansas



MTC-00019109

From: John Abreau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea. A settlement 
should be a punishment, but what's been proposed is actually a 
reward, one that would give Microsoft new opportunities to extend 
its monopoly into the few areas it hasn't taken over yet.
    John Abreau
    Executive Director,
    Boston Linux & Unix
    ICQ 28611923
    AIM abreauj
    JABBER [email protected]
    YAHOO abreauj



MTC-00019110

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my belief the settlement of the Suit USDOJ v. Microsoft is 
not a benefit to very many citizens in the USA.
    Harold W. Ard
    613 Hibner St.
    Tupelo, MS 38804



MTC-00019111

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to state my absolute dismay at the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. As it stands, not only 
does Microsoft avoid any penalty of any kind, but the company gains 
an even greater stranglehold on the computing world. A company who 
uses its extreme wealth and apparent political advantage to destroy 
anything that does not represent a direct profit for itself, and a 
company which is in apparent violation of investment laws in 
addition to that with which it has already been found guilt, is nw 
about to be handed over the keys to the world wide web of which it 
has contributed absolutely nothing but now desires to control.
    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, 
...''
    Were it not for the not-for-profit, i.e. open source community, 
there would not be a

[[Page 26674]]

world wide web as we know it today. All of the commerce we so fully 
enjoy would not be available today. Yet we do enjoy what the www can 
provide and all this was done without the predatory manipulations. 
Now, as a penalty for its behavior, the courts are proposing to not 
only do nothing to stop the predatory practices of Microsoft, but to 
literally hand over the potential to totally manipulate the web for 
their own benefit. Absolutely unbelievable!! Please carefully 
reconsider the proposed ``remedies'' in the case, stop the 
current proposal, and return to the drawing board to construct a 
truly fair penalty for Microsoft, one that benefits the tens of 
thousands who have been harmed by the Microsoft predatory practices 
and one that truly penalizes Microsoft for its continued predatory 
behavior!
    David C. Johanson, Ph.D.
    University Professor



MTC-00019112

From: J. Tuttle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing as both a concerned citizen and as an end user of 
much computer software, both Microsoft's and others'', to 
express my discontent with the proposed settlement of United States 
v. Microsoft. I am most concerned about certain proposals that 
Microsoft has allegedly made which would have millions of dollars of 
Microsoft software and solely-compatible hardware placed in public 
schools. The education market is one of the few where Microsoft is 
not dominant (or at least where it faces the greatest opposition), 
and it is outrageous that Microsoft might be allowed to further its 
monopoly over operating systems as part of any deal with the 
Government.
    Microsoft should not be encouraged to foist its products on the 
few markets that it does not monopolize as part of any settlement, 
and any efforts it makes in this direction should harm, rather than 
help, its negotiating position, both in and out of court.
    If Microsoft wishes to show that they are sincere in wanting to 
help this nation's underprivelidged children, they should take the 
amount of money that their proposed program would require, and spend 
it instead solely on products from competing companies, or on 
unpatented, free operating systems like GNU/Linux.
    Any settlement with Microsoft should be strong enough to send a 
message to both Microsoft and to other companies who might emulate 
Microsoft that anticompetitive practices that hurt the consumer 
(and, by extension, the American economy) will not be tolerated. 
Computers and the Internet have become too important both to our 
economy and to our society in general to allow a single company to 
gain even a partial monopoly over them. Without a strong message 
now, there is little doubt that Microsoft will find new and 
different ways to attempt to monopolize the Internet, and eliminate 
or absorb whatever stands in the way.
    Thank you very much for your time.
    Sincerely,
    James W. Tuttle



MTC-00019113

From: Alfred Chiesa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Enclosed in this e-mail are my thoughts on the Microsoft 
antitrust case.
    Regards,
    Alfred J. Chiesa
    31222 Countryway
    Farmington Hills, MI 48331
    Alfred J. Chiesa
    31222 Countryway
    Farmington Hills, MI 48331
    My comments are going to be short and to the point. I have been 
a long time Microsoft software user and switched about 7 years ago 
to Apple when I started to realize how they competed with their 
competitors in the software industry. This was about the time when 
Netscape was the standard web browser and sold their browser on line 
for $29.95. I was very pleased with the product and thought the 
price was fair for a yearly subscription price. Then Microsoft 
launched its web browser Internet Explorer, IE. IE was not as 
developed as Netscape was, at the time, but the intriguing thing 
about IE was that Microsoft was able to offer it for free. I 
downloaded the browser and began to use it and before you know it, I 
let my Netscape subscription lapse and became a dedicated IE user. 
Then a few years had passed and I missed my Netscape browser. They 
had discontinued development of the product, made the program open 
source, and eventually sold it to AOL. The current offering is not 
as robust as the earlier versions and now I have been trying to find 
an alternative to IE but no one has a browser that is capable of 
running all of the necessary plug-ins needed to view today's graphic 
intense websites.
    I believe that since Microsoft has an obligation as a company to 
promote competition and innovation in the industry. Not by acquiring 
and incorporating other companies technology but making available 
their software products to other platforms. If people choose to use 
Linux, Solaris, or Macintosh as their platform of choice, they 
should make available their software to the users of these 
platforms. This, in my mind, would allow individuals to lessen their 
dependency on using only Microsoft products and promoting growth in 
these alternative platforms, for example Linux, and would allow 
developers to compete in furnishing products for this emerging 
market. As long as Microsoft makes its programs a ``Windows 
Only'' solution, nothing in this industry will change. You will 
see more innovative technology fall by the wayside, like the Be OS, 
that primarily failed because of the lack of applications.
    I am pleased with my choice of switching to an alternative 
operating platform, Apple, and I am writing this plea on a Microsoft 
product written specifically for the operating environment. I hope 
that in future years I will be able to make the same choice, maybe 
with a new and even more impressive system, because like in all 
things in nature diversity is what fosters new and innovative 
changes to happen



MTC-00019114

From: Samuel Herschbein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I recognize the importance of a strong economy for the strength 
of our nation. I also recognize that our Constitution and laws 
protect us from being taken over (politically and economically) by 
groups with their own agendas.
    As a computer professional since 1980 and a Macintosh user since 
1986, I have watched Microsoft use its corporate strength to ensure 
its success without due regard to the law. Your case addressed some 
of these issues, many other actions have not been brought to 
justice.
    Part of the proposed settlement is for Microsoft to donate 
equipment and software to schools. Apple Computer has dominated in 
this market, in spite of Microsoft's best efforts to compete. The 
proposed settlement will allow Microsoft to take over this market, 
contradicting the verdict and the principle of competition.
    Please do what is just and legal. This trial has many parallels 
to the ``robber barons'' of the last century. They 
postured themselves as victims of an interfering government, 
Microsoft has done the same. They even had the audacity to question 
the DOJ and try to turn public opinion against you and the 
government on their web pages. Personally, I see that as a version 
of ``jury tampering.''
    One thing must be remembered: the law has been broken, a verdict 
has been made, and the punishment should fit the crime. In light of 
the Enron failure, I believe that many people will be looking to the 
government to control this unmitigated greed that thinks it is OK to 
break our country's laws to get what they want.
    Thank you,
    Samuel Herschbein
    (206) 524-3109-Voice
    (206) 524-3109-Fax
    (206) 963-2147-Cell
    [email protected]
    http://www.oz.net/samh/



MTC-00019115

From: Michael Pease
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi:
    The current settlement is quite inadequate. Microsoft should be 
severely penalized for its criminal conduct, and broken into 
separate pieces. There needs to be severe punishment in any 
settlement.
    Thanks,
    Michael Pease
    Systems Integrator
    Zones, Inc.
    425.430.3636
    425.430.3625 fax
    http://www.zones.com



MTC-00019116

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the proposed settlement. Stronger action 
against Microsoft

[[Page 26675]]

is needed to preserve the free market and allow freedom of choice of 
operating systems and software.
    Best regards.
    Lawrence S. Tawa



MTC-00019117

From: Igor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    As a user of computer products and technologies, and being an IT 
professional, I am deeply worried about the growing influence of 
Microsoft Inc. in the global marketplace. Microsoft has through the 
sheer weight of its market domination sought to gain even more 
influence and power.
    Its treatment of Netscape, which it saw as a powerful competitor 
for its Windows platform, has been widely documented and is 
exemplary of the ruthless nature of the way Microsoft conducts 
business.
    Although Microsoft is in the business of making money and 
although they should be free to follow their own course, this should 
not include the right to hinder its competitors to the point where 
they cannot compete on equal terms. The very fact that Microsoft 
dominates the desktop and through this expedient alone can control 
who can and who cannot weave his products seamlessly into the 
Windows mesh is proof enough that competitors are not working on a 
level playing field. The odds are indeed very heavily stacked in 
favor of Microsoft when it comes to defending its interests on the 
desktop.
    Furthermore, I find there is a deeply offensive character to the 
way Microsoft is trying to buy its way out of this court case. Not 
only is it offering a compensation for its conduct which would not 
cost the company a lot of money (the value of their offering is an 
arbitrary sum since they don't have to pay themselves full value for 
the products they'd be offering the schools), but more damning than 
anything else, providing the schools with more of its products, 
thereby guaranteeing a larger user base by creating future 
marketshare, they are circumventing their conviction for offending 
against the Sherman Act. And they are doing it in such a way as to 
negating the conviction and turning a defeat into a court ordered 
victory. This is the equivalent of allowing a thief to sell back at 
full price the stolen item to his victim, and forcing the victim to 
accept. Every fraud, every gangster, every con artist will DEMAND to 
be tried by this court. A conviction is better than winning the 
case.
    If this settlement is allowed to stand as it is, the court is 
giving the wrong signal to everybody who intends to defraud, 
embezzle or steal from his neighbour. Every company will seek to 
defend its claim in this court because a settlement will be in its 
favor. In a judicial system that relies heavily on precedent, this 
is the most dangerous precedent of all. To compound the injury, 
Microsoft has never offered its shareholders a dividend in the 
profits and it has done so solely for the purpose of evading 
superior taxes of 39% on income from dividends in favor of the 
lesser tax amount of 20% for profits on selling stock. Microsoft has 
an enormous amount of cash money at its disposal. The law states 
that a company should have sufficient means to conduct its business 
but Microsoft has more cash than any other company on the planet. 
This is money that it has won through exploiting its monopoly very 
effectively. This way the company keeps winning. Not only is it 
convicted of a monopoly and is it subsequently rewarded with a 
settlement that perpetuates its monopoly, the money it has made it 
wants to keep for itself and its largest shareholders, among which 
its co-founder and chairman William H. Gates III.
    Through its refusal to offer a dividend to its shareholders it 
evades taxes that are rightfully due to the State and thus to the 
general public.
    How can it be that Microsoft which is convicted for being a 
monopoly gets to keep the spoils from exploiting that monopoly, 
witholds taxes from the State and gets the most favorable settlement 
in a court case in the history of the judicial system ? What message 
is sent here to the regular tax payer who does not have an army of 
legal geniuses at his disposal, who has to do an honest day's work 
for a modest income and who sees that convicted companies get away 
scotfree and with a golden deal to boot ?
    I want to close by saying that I do not begrudge Microsoft its 
money, or Willliam H. Gates III his status as richest man on the 
planet. Although I do not scoff at the possibilities that an 
abundance of money allows, I have found other riches in life that 
money will never buy. I fully realise this is clichi but I mean it 
from the bottom of my heart. What worries me here is that if 
Microsoft gets away with its business practices and does not get a 
very stern signal, it will just keep doing what it has always done. 
When someone receives punishment that in real terms amounts to no 
punishment at all, he does not see the need or feel compelled to 
change his ways, and isn't that why punishment was meted out in the 
first place ? I think this is true for Microsoft as well. It is also 
a very bad signal to other companies that perpetrate these and 
likewise felonies that when they should ever face the wrath of 
justice they should not worry too much. And for what that implies I 
worry very deeply indeed.
    I am sure you will rule wisely and serenely. I have confidence 
in the law because it is the protector for those who cannot protect 
themselves.
    May God bless you.
    Ignace Van Caneghem



MTC-00019118

From: Joshua Siler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'd like to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I 
believe the settlement is a correct and appropriate action at this 
time.
    Regards,
    Joshua Siler
    3412 NW Vaughn St
    Portland, OR 97210



MTC-00019119

From: Roy Franz
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 1/23/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft is getting off with a slap on the wrist, 
if even that. They were found to have broken many laws, and I 
believe that their abuses go far beyond what the court found. They 
should be dealt with sternly, in a way that will prevent future 
abuses. They have not changed their ways, and unless they are 
severely penalized and watched over by someone with real power over 
them, they will continue to ruin innovative companies by putting 
them out of business or just stealing their technology. They are 
basically above the law, as they can outspend anyone in court (and 
it seems they even did that with the US government, as they are 
getting off with nothing more than a stern warning.) Any settlement 
that Microsoft is willing to negotiate is too easy on them. Please 
do not settle with them. Roy Franz



MTC-00019120

From: Richard Nolan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a United States citizen, living in Canada. I strongly 
object to the proposed final settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
case. I feel it still leaves Microsoft in a position to stifle 
innovation by the sheer volume of the market segment it controls. 
While I do believe in free enterprise, it seems obvious that 
Microsoft behaves (and will continue to do so if this case is 
settled as proposed) in a belligerent manner to its competition.
    Please think very carefully before moving forward on this 
* * *
    Regards
    Richard Nolan



MTC-00019121

From: michael(u)barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is too lenient on Microsoft, and is therefor not 
a good settlement. The remedy does not go far enough, the penalties 
are too light. The proposed settlement will not have any significant 
affect on Microsoft's behavior. It should be thrown out.



MTC-00019122

From: Michael Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement.
    Microsoft has irrevocably altered the evolution of information 
technology, both in the technical sense and the social sense. So 
have other entities: Apple Computer, Bill Joy, Vincent Cerf, etc., 
etc. Microsoft, however, has provably done so through technological 
piracy and unethical and illegal(!) business practices. The result 
has been the unprecedented growth of the indisputably rapacious 
monster, Microsoft, at the ever increasing cost to us at large. I 
find the

[[Page 26676]]

defense of Microsoft based on the benefit it has created through a 
unified environment to be utterly ludicrous. The loss of national 
productivity due to the use of Windows alone should be an indictable 
crime.
    Given what has been *proven* in court, the proposed settlement 
offers a truly lame and ineffectual punishment. It is just plain 
unacceptable. I apologize to the reader if this seems polemical. 
Thorough and even-handed analyses supporting this point of view 
abound (e.g. by GCSF, Inc). The message that this settlement would 
send to everyday people like myself, is that money has a heavy hand, 
indeed, in our judicial system.
    Michael Williams
    1861 Smithfield Drive
    Blacksburg, Va 24060
    PS: What is being done to control against undue Microsoft 
influence to the tally of Tunney-Act comments? After all, it's not 
like they haven't done it before.



MTC-00019124

From: Joan Niertit
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your proposed settlement is a joke. Microsoft needs to be 
fundamentally challenged on its business pratices, and punished 
meaningfully (in great amount of money) for the harm its 
anticompetitive practices have done to consumers and software 
vendors. Throw out your settlement and start over.
    Sincerely,
    Joan Niertit



MTC-00019125

From: Robert Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement has agregious shortcomings, and I think 
it should not be approved. I have signed onto Dan Kegel's open 
letter regarding this matter.



MTC-00019126

From: Daniel Nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney Generals, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    I would like to forward my comments on the Anti-Trust case 
against Microsoft. I have forwarded several articles about 
Microsoft's practices to Attorney General Tom Rielly and other 
Attorney Generals not settling the anti-trust case with Microsoft. I 
believe these states, companies that Microsoft has harmed, and the 
World pc user community has been severely harmed by the anti-
competitive practices that Microsoft has done and will continue to 
do without strong restrictions.
    Please let me state this again. We have already seen that 
Microsoft does not care about users, security, and robust 
applications.
    I would first like to say that by allowing Microsoft to give 
it's software to school districts as punishment is no punishment at 
all.
    I am writing this email on a computer at Pensacola Junior 
College in Pensacola, Florida. I also use the computers at 2 
locations at West Florida Regional Library in Pensacola. There are 
no other computers, non-windows, for students and the community to 
use. All the computers have Windows operating systems (OS). All have 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) Browser installed. At the public 
library, the Bill Gates Foundation donated computers to the Library 
system, which in turn runs only the software Microsoft gives them. 
Some of the computers have AOL's Instant Messenger installed on them 
at the community college. So, while Mr. Gates donates his software, 
he has people indoctrinated on his products.
    I dont believe Microsoft will adhere to or follow minor 
restrictions placed against the company. I dont believe that 
Microsoft will in any way change the company's practices anytime 
soon unless severe restrictions are in place.
    I have been reading technology news for several years now. 
Microsoft has teamed up with Bristol and other companies coming up 
with new technologies. Microsoft then backs out of the deal holding 
part of the copyright and threatens to sue if they use it in an 
attempt to compete against Microsoft.
    Another issue about the Anti-Trust case is that Microsoft wants 
to keep documents sealed from the court case. Why? If it is not 
trademark secrets, what is MS afraid of; the public seeing the true 
company plans (or the true company) and not liking what they see. I 
don't think that the court should seal the documents. If the 
documents harm Microsoft's image, let them live with what they have 
practice. Don't let them hide behind secrecy.
    In the last year there have been major flaws in Microsoft 
software that proves that the company does not care about the 
consumer and is only thinking of the bottom line. Let me point out 
the following:
    Two business analyst recommended in late 2001 that companies 
using Microsoft's Internet Information Server(IIS) should think 
about an alternative server product due to attacks and security 
flaws in the product.
    During a system crash, Office XP and IE was found to 
``grab'' information and send it back to Microsoft for 
operating system ``crash analysis.'' This 
``bug'' or problem was found at the Los Alamos Laboratory. 
(I hope no one sent nuclear secrets to Microsoft, we'll have a whole 
new set of problems to worry about.) (Its the year 2002 and 
Microsoft has made Billions of dollars over the years and NOW they 
are getting concerned about security issues.) In November or 
December of 2001, there was a report of Microsoft's SQL database 
having a significant vulnerability.
    Windows XP was released in Sept 2001. 2 months later, in 
December 2001, it was reported that there was a major vulnerability 
that would allow a Windows XP computer to be taken over from 2500+ 
miles away. This was supposed to be the most stable and attack proof 
operating system for users.
    The same vulnerability found in Windows XP was found to be in 
Windows 98 and ME and there were suggestions that Microsoft knew 
about these exploits and still released Windows XP. Microsoft 
implemented the Active Directory authentication service for Windows. 
This would lock the company to Microsofts service. There would be no 
reversing the procedure if you found out later that you did not like 
the way the service directory performs. You would have to do a 
complete deletion and start over with your organizations computers, 
printers, servers, users id and passwords, etc. But, some of 
Microsofts competitors raised interoperability questions and 
Microsoft restructured Active Directory to accept the Light-Weight 
Directory Access Protocol. (Seems weird when you look at it like 
that, Microsoft had the capability to use competing protocols all 
the time?)
    Limiting servers on a directory service-re-pricing 
issues- Window 2000 users cry foul There are three new 
limitations on the proposed XP Server license: two processors only; 
no Application Mode Terminal Services operation; and a limitation of 
two Servers per Active Directory forest. This has caused howls of 
protest from the existing Windows 2000 users because they can see a 
whole new level of financial pain. Here's a typical scenario. Your 
headquarters has Advanced Server but your I00 regional offices are 
equipped with Server. You need a local server on each site, but you 
want them all in one Active Directory forest for easy management and 
control.
    In the proposed repackaging, every one of those regional Servers 
will have to be upgraded to Advanced Server at a cost of more than 
1000 each. Before anyone leaps up and presses the panic button, be 
clear that these are proposed packages. There is no indication that 
they will end up in production, or that it will be the same case for 
select customers as for shrink-wrap. http://www.vnunet.com/Analysis/
1126600
    I have used Microsofts Works home productivity software. In 
1997-1998, I tried to help a friend with a resume. He had 
typed it on Microsoft Works and I went to the Junior College to 
format it and print it on a laser printer. At that time Microsoft 
did not have a file reader for its own home productivity product to 
be read by MS Word 97. It would appear that Microsoft marketed 
Microsoft Works on pcs to be sold for home use. Then, when you 
brought a file in MS Word 97 format home, MS Works could not read it 
and the same for Works to Word 97. So the users wanting to read and 
edit files in MS Word 97 would have to go out and buy the $125 plus 
Version of Word 97 for their home use. In March or April of 1998, 
Microsoft released a file reader for Word97, Excel 97, and I believe 
Power Point to view flies on a pc without the original application. 
File incompatibility for revenue purposes? During the first Anti-
Trust hearing in 1994-95 and later there were documents and 
suggestions about Microsofts Windows 3.1 OS having hidden code. 
http://eatthestate.org/03-07/MicrosoftPlaysHardball.htm
    Microsoft plays hardball: Of course, this is not new behavior 
for the software giant. In 1991, Microsoft employees launched an 
exceptionally dastardly plan to kill another competitor, DR DOS. DR 
DOS sales threatened MS-DOS, the early predecessor to Windows 95 
that established Microsoft's operating system monopoly. DR DOS sales 
were on the rise-they doubled from $15

[[Page 26677]]

million in 1990 to $30 million in 1991. They soared again to $15 
million in the first quarter of 1992 alone. Then disaster struck.
    Microsoft was writing Windows 3.1, an important upgrade to the 
hugely popular Windows 3.0. In September 1991, a plan was hatched to 
use this upgrade to kill DR DOS. In an email discovered by the Dept. 
of Justice, the head of Windows development and Microsoft VP David 
Cole wrote, ``aaronr had some pretty wild ideas after three or 
so beers-earleh has some too.'' The plan was to plant 
code into Windows which would ``put competitors on a 
treadmill'' and cause the system to ``surely crash at some 
point shortly later.'' In order words, Windows would 
intentionally bomb if it detected DR DOS.
    At this time, many computer vendors were considering switching 
from MS-DOS to the superior, cheaper DR DOS. Microsoft was 
especially concerned about IBM. Wooing these PC vendors was crucial 
to the future success of DR DOS, as was the good will of 
``early-adopters'' (i.e., technically savvy users who 
drive new trends in the computer industry). These vendors and early-
adopters were also the same people who received a Christmas 
``beta'' pre-release of Windows 3.1. They 
discovered-to their horror-that using DR DOS would cause 
vague system errors to pop up in Windows 3.1; they dumped DR DOS in 
droves.
    More links to windows 3.1 error codes:
    http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/kkoster/microsoft/
caldera.html
    http://www.insecure.org/myworld.html
    And lets not forget what Microsoft is doing with its monopoly in 
Europe and the EU trying to rein Microsoft in. It would seem that 
not just the US and pc users are having a hard time trying to 
convince Microsoft of competing fairly. It is not in the companys 
corporate plan. This article suggests that we hold companies liable 
for security breaches in their products. I guess you should ask 
Microsoft to re-write their end user license agreements EULA while 
you have their attention. http://news.com.com/
2100-1023-821266. html
    In the end of 2001, a system security expert warned Microsoft of 
a severe vulnerability in Windows software. Microsoft waited for 8+ 
days to issue an alert. The security researcher released the problem 
to responsible teams. Microsoft labeled him an extremist. Only after 
the security researcher released the problem did Microsoft 
acknowledge the problem. The last comment I want to make is this. 
You should want to buy the product not be forced to buy the product. 
If you are forced to buy the product, the company can make a product 
without much improvement and the quality of that product will 
suffer. I hope that I have highlighted some new information or 
reiterated some information for your review. Does Microsoft have the 
best products or is that the only choice?
    Thank you,
    Daniel S. Nichols
    548 Selina St
    Pensacola, F1 32503



MTC-00019127

From: Wilson, John G
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:53pm
Subject: MS settlement
    By not thoroughly punishing MS, you are not thoroughly 
condemning their actions. MS has publicly claimed they haven't done 
anything wrong. What makes the DOJ think MS won't find other ways to 
illegally leverage their monopoly? MS has often been humiliated in 
public by the sloppiness of various aspects of their software. A 
public slap on the wrist, some fines, and an order to stop the 
illegal activity that they never should have done in the first place 
is NOT going to make them change their ways.
    If such a weak punishment as the proposed punishment is put in 
place, what will other companies aspiring to gain monopolies think? 
Maybe they will think, ``all we have to do is gain a monopoly, 
because once we do, nobody will want to stop using our products, and 
we'll be so rich that monetary fines won't phase us''.
    Look at all the things MS has: money, customers, influence, 
power. They also have responsibilities to the computer industry 
unlike any other company. MS has thoroughly abused all that they 
have been given. MS should not be allowed to continue to wield such 
power over the industry. I don't know how to take away what MS has 
illegally gained (and hence no longer deserves), but the current 
settlement does not go far enough.
    John
    [email protected]
    John Wilson
    SETE Tools Development
    ``Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve 
life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out 
death in judgment For even the wise cannot see all 
ends.''-Gandalf



MTC-00019128

From: Bob Parnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not favor the proposed settlement.
    Bob Parnes



MTC-00019129

From: Elan Freydenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the propossed settlement is a bad idea.
    One reason is the settlement should prohibit Microsoft from 
limiting the use of Windows-compatible operating systems.
    Elan



MTC-00019130

From: Courtney Winston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It has seemed to me for some time,that a company with their 
resources might use them to improve their products,rather than 
coerce the market to use them regardless of merit.
    C Winston



MTC-00019131

From: Steve Dzemidzenka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hello,
    I want to express my opinion about Microsoft monopolistic 
advantage. I truly believe that Microsoft has a huge advantage over 
any of its competitors. Having Windows and giving away add-ons for 
free, they kill a lot of products which are better, but charging for 
those products cannot be justified when Microsoft's products are 
free. Microsoft can afford to give add-ons for free and having 
Windows as the most powerful distribution channel possible, they 
take unfair advantage. Operating system is the foundation of every 
piece of hardware. No hardware can run without it. The company which 
controls operating system controls a lot of things. I truly believe 
that the operating system should be owned by independent third party 
which will provide the core set of operating system functionality to 
anybody who needs it on equal terms. This business is self 
sustaining and MUST be split away from Microsoft. This will insure 
that Microsoft does not have unfair advantage for other add-on 
product distribution by dictating Windows's terms of use. I hope my 
government realizes all the seriousness of the situation and takes 
the proper steps to bring the spirit of competition back to the 
industry.
    Thank you in advance
    Steve Dzemidzenka
    [email protected]
    602-522-5936
    USA



MTC-00019132

From: Joe Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:56pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. I believe that the settlement does little 
to punish this convicted monoplist and even less to restore balance 
to the competitive market.
    It is blindingly obvious to me that the weak provisions in this 
settlement will serve only to embolden this company that to date has 
shown no remorse nor admitted any wrongdoing. One need only to look 
to the proceedings in Judge Jackson's courtroom to see how this 
monopolist views the judicial system. They lied. I mean just out and 
out lied. They faked evidence and then lied about that when caught. 
This company believes that they are above the law and can do as they 
wish. That is wrong. This settlement reminds me of Britain's 
appeasement of Germany prior to 1939. Please do not become known as 
the ``Neville Chamberlin'' of the electronic age.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Harbert



MTC-00019133

From: Ken Beal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Decision
    Settling with Microsoft will not solve the problem that was 
created by Microsoft's 

[[Page 26678]]

predatory business practices, nor will it 
bring back the companies whose carcasses litter Microsoft's past.
    I think there's one very specific thing that can be done to make 
the situation more competitive. After all, competition is the goal, 
right? The more companies competing for customers, the better the 
effort each company will put forth, and the slimmer the margin each 
company will skim. In the past, the OS portion of a computer 
purchase was small, like $60 of $3,000. These days it's more like 
$90 ? but of a much smaller purchase, as full-featured computers can 
be purchased for $700 these days. Even if the cost of Windows had 
stayed the same, rather than risen, the cost of Windows as a 
percentage of the cost of the computer would have risen.
    My solution: declare illegal the contracts that Microsoft forces 
OEMs to sign, in order to get preferred pricing. These contracts 
enforce that the OEM cannot customize the computer; cannot put any 
third-party applications that compete with Microsoft's offerings 
(which these days are almost any third-party applications!); and 
what's worse, eliminate the OEMs ability to sell a computer with 
more than one operating system on it. There was a Hitachi computer 
sold recently with the Be OS, but it was hidden; the customer had to 
jump through some difficult technical hoops to enable it. Be OS's 
founder, Jean Louise Gasse, announced that he would provide the OS 
for free to any computer manufacturer (OEM) who would ship it. Only 
one OEM did, Hitachi, but in a form that was rather unusable to most 
consumers.
    If the Department of Justice does one thing and one thing only, 
it should be to eliminate Microsoft's OEM contracts. Force Microsoft 
to sell Windows at a specific price for a specific number of units 
(i.e., a customer purchasing 10,000 licenses could get a better deal 
than a customer purchasing 10 licenses; however, an OEM who agrees 
to ship only Windows XP and Office XP should not get a better deal 
than an OEM who prefers to ship Windows XP with Netscape and 
StarOffice, assuming they?re purchasing the same number of licenses. 
Or a computer equipped with Windows XP and Red Hat Linux). My point 
is Microsoft is selling a product. They shouldn?t get the right to 
dictate how that product is used or configured when the OEM then 
sells it to the end user. There are many examples of this in other 
industries (i.e., Ford or GM may purchase radios from Blaupunkt or 
Sony, for installation in their vehicles; and often, the auto 
manufacturer removes the faceplate and replaces it with one with 
their logo). To take the auto metaphor further, Ford sells a car to 
its dealer. The dealer then adds decals and metal logos with the 
name of the dealership to the back of the car, before selling it to 
the end user.
    Obviously, Microsoft would want the OEM to not make changes to 
the Windows OS code, as that may destabilize the operating system 
and lead to crashes. However, when an OEM sells a computer, the 
contract they have with Microsoft forces the OEM to pay Microsoft 
for a Windows license, even if the computer was configured with a 
different OS! This reduces competition, because an OEM figures, if I 
have to pay for it anyway, I might as well ship it. If an OEM was 
free to sell computers configured however they wanted, and only pay 
for the parts included when that computer includes those parts, then 
I would say we have reached a fair settlement.
    There are many, many other problems with the settlement, but if 
the OEM contract issue is resolved, the market will help correct the 
rest of the problems.
    Thanks for listening,
    Ken Beal
    Coconut Creek, FL



MTC-00019134

From: Phillip C. Wolf
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    I am an avid computer user since learning about them in my high 
school in 1972.
    I am also a member of the Armed Services of the United States of 
America, and have witnessed firsthand the tears of frustration at 
using an incompetent software suite foisted upon the country by 
Microsoft.
    This is NOT a benevolent monopoly as ATT was. This is an evil, 
greedy, incompetent corporation which stops at NOTHING to extend and 
prevail it's dominance.
    Witness:
    Bill Gates, Microsoft, et alia working dilgently behind the 
scenes to control and steer the COMCAST/ATT broadband merger, so as 
to completely stiffle any potential competition from AOL Time 
Warner.
    My industry-standard, world-standard computer software is today 
increasing finding internet sites which do not function properly due 
to Microsoft's blatant highjacking of such standards with 
proprietory ``flavors'' which are known only by Microsoft, 
and which overtake the world internet by their monopoly 
stranglehold. (Java, C++, VisualBasic, FTP, html, and TCP/IP)
    The self-imposed, self-proposed ``penalty'' offer 
(truly, THIS IS A PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO MAKE A COMPLETE MOCKERY OF THE 
JUDICIAL SYSTEM) to pay off foul deeds against the comsumers of 
America and the world, by ``donating'' used systems 
containing Microsoft products EXCLUSIVELY to public schools. Is 
there no one in government today who can see that this is a thinly 
disguised attempt to POISON the minds of schoolchildren and pull 
them into the Hell that is Windows(tm)?????? Unix, OS/2 (killed by 
Microsoft) even Linux, are far, far, far better operating systems 
than Microsoft Windows. ANYONE who uses a computer extensively and 
dares to compare will see this in a micro-second.
    To close, I add the thoughts of a commentator I read at 
Linuxplanet.com, with which I am in COMPLETE agreement:
    * Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the 
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price 
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one 
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the 
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the 
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could 
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
    * The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document 
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on 
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of 
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement.
    * Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would 
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
    PLEASE: Stop this monster run amok.
    PLEASE: protect Americans and others from this criminal 
hegemony.
    PLEASE: decide in favor of the American Way of Life which has 
worked so well for hundreds of years-a fair, open, and LEVEL 
playing field for business.
    Do the right thing.
    Please.
    sincerely,
    Phillip C. Wolf
    Master Chief Petty Officer (USCG)
    Consumer
    Patriot



MTC-00019135

From: Jack Gott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft Settlement to be a bad Idea.
    A final judgement of fines only is way too soft.
    Please release the computer users in corporate America of this 
tyrany.
    Thank you.
    Jack Gott



MTC-00019136

From: John Davies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is my feeling that the suit against Microsoft should be 
settled in terms agreed to by the Dept. of Justice. It appears to me 
that the suit is being prolonged by Microsoft's competitors in spite 
of favorable terms to consumers. The prolongation of this suit is 
wearing thin. I would urge all parties to settle.
    Sincerely, John R. Davies, M.D.



MTC-00019137

From: Greg Steiert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    I think more work needs to be done to remedy the problem.
    Greg Steiert


[[Page 26679]]

    [email protected]



MTC-00019138

From: BudasBrother
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Below I have listed the top 10 reasons Microsoft is a Monopoly 
and why that's not a positive position for the computer industry as 
a whole;
    01. Microsoft is smothering the IT Industry.
    Microsoft's habit of taking fledgling computing platforms/
applications and integrating them into the behemoth that is 
Microsoft, in doing so they are killing the small developer 
community. Microsoft is in fact slowing the IT industry by 
smothering the small developer. It is the small developer, the late 
night programmer or the back yard developer, the uni student, etc 
that come up with the new applications. These are the people that 
have a problem and solve it using their PC, with the solutions 
eventually moving into the mainstream if popular. As opposed to 
Microsoft who seems to be continually trying to find a new problem 
for their solution. Just look at the advances within the IT Industry 
over the last 20 years, how many were invented by Microsoft??? A few 
examples;
    -GUI with Mouse type control (First display by Xerox, first 
adapted by Apple)
    -All major Application Groups, from Word Processor to Graphics, 
non first developed by Microsoft.
    -Multi Tasking stable OS-First on the desktop Amiga, 20 
years ago. -Internet-University based invention
    -Instant Messaging-Not Microsoft
    -Hotmail-MS blew alot of cash on this one to get in early.
    Without the smaller more creative developer these new 
applications, new solutions are being created less often. Without 
these advances the IT industry will slow. The reasons to upgrade and 
continue the cycle will become less and less. By using the strategy 
of buying or smothering small developers Microsoft has given the 
whole industry a full frontal lobotomy, with a piece of barbed wire. 
If this seems a little paranoid, it is all spelled out in 
Microsoft's .Net strategy. The plan for total control.
    02. Microsoft-Lawyer University
    Microsoft's use of the legal system to intimidate competition, 
is destructive to the industry. It also makes a mockery of the legal 
system when a company can bank roll its own laws. I think it very 
irresponsible for MS to use the Legal system as a defensive 
manoeuvre for its market. I see the legal system as being a way of 
defence, not attack. There are a couple of good examples of this at 
the moment, the License agreement every user unknowingly agrees to, 
the legal attack on Lindows.
    03. If Microsoft were my child.
    If MS were a child someone would have put him on Ritalin years 
ago. They're behaviour is irresponsible and they never let anyone 
play with their toys.
    04. My personal favourite piece of MS false advertising.
    Microsoft's ``FREE'' software bundles. If they do 
include any software with the OS and the user has paid thru the nose 
for the OS how can anything included with the OS be called free. 
Especially when you consider the work you have to put in removing 
all of these free pieces of software to put on the ones you want.
    05. Locking Users in the Dungeon of MS
    This argument has been made many times but it must be said 
again. By locking users into their specific brand of application 
(usually slow and buggy) they are limiting the user. The greatest 
example is Win XP. I feel sorry for users of IRC and Messaging other 
than Microsoft Messenger. Microsoft will say tactic is to allow 
quicker and more stable user experience. But the truth is that alot 
of the alternatives are better written with better options, that if 
installed would probably be quicker and smoother. Can anyone answer 
how I uninstall Windows Explorer from windows. Explorer is not my 
favourite file util but do I install the file util I like then use 
Explorer to start it. Does this seem a little silly to only me??? 
This is also effecting the small developer and IT Company.
    06. Microsoft doesn't Listen.
    The direction of the IT industry is driven by the consumer being 
given options and the most popular one wins, its a basic but honest 
system. The IT industry does still operate this way but with 
Microsoft running their monopoly instead of the people making the 
decision, they have taken it upon themselves to decide what it is we 
want. I guess until we stop giving them money hand over fist they 
may be justified in there position!!!!!
    The only way things will really change is if people get sick of 
MS's behaviour and move to another OS, give it 5 years.
    07. Microsoft is bleeding everyone dry.
    At the end of the day when all is said and done I think that 
really, the most destructive thing Microsoft is doing to the 
industry is simply bleeding it dry. The outrageous prices they 
charge, annual upgrades, courses and the rest of the charges you 
incur if you want to have any commercial contact with Microsoft are 
now responsible for a large percentage of the commercial running 
cost of any IT services within a company. If we were to take 
Microsoft's annual income and set-up a series of smaller companies 
with more specific direction you would be able to set-up 1000's of 
companies. The combined input into the computer industry as a whole 
would be far greater than Microsoft itself provides. I also infer 
that because the smaller companies could be more specific the 
quality of services/products would rise.
    Yours Sincerely
    Athol Courtenay (aka BudasBrother)



MTC-00019139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Allowing MSFT to force them to give away their software to 
schools is like giving them the right to do super-dumping to blow 
away competition. Not too bad for a punishment against anti-trust, 
eh? Since it's all about politics, who cares except those getting 
bigs bugs from those deals?



MTC-00019140

From: Michael S. Toohey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    My name is Michael S. Toohey and I want to protest the Proposed 
Final Judgement that will be handed down in the Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Trial. There are many items wrong with it and I beg the court to 
reconsider it. Microsoft continues to utilize business practices 
that allow it to ``snake'' around the law. Slapping 
Microsoft on the wrist is something that should not be done again. 
Microsoft will ``snake'' away from the Final Judgement by 
focusing away from the Operating Systems in Definition U of the PFJ 
and focus on other items in a monopolistic manor. These tactics will 
hinder innovation for other devices, hence hindering the 
productivity of the American People.
    Thank You for your time.



MTC-00019141

From: Chris Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    /To Whom It May Concern: /
    /I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. /
    /The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. /
    /Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. /
    /While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded. /
    /Sincerely,/
    /Christopher Lawrence/



MTC-00019142

From: Roy Mackay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree. Please take extreme care with this.
    Thanks
    Roy Mackay


[[Page 26680]]



MTC-00019143

From: McCombs, Peter
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in regard to the proposed Microsoft Settlement, as 
allowed under the Tunney Act, and in hopes that this opinion might 
be considered prior to the final acceptance of settlement terms as 
they stand at this time.
    I am a professional engaged in the development of computer 
software, and have no strong complaint against Microsoft from a 
technical perspective. However, I have noticed a marked decline in 
the quality of computing in general, and particularly in the 
decreasing ability of my fellow citizens to employ technology 
creatively and constructively in their daily lives. This I attribute 
to the increasing stranglehold that Microsoft maintains on the 
computer desktop market.
    I applaud the Findings of Fact, and agree with the courts that 
Microsoft's actions cannot be considered lawful and must be 
remedied. However, it is apparent to myself, and many in my 
profession, that the proposed settlement falls far short of 
addressing the problem. It must do more to reduce the barrier of 
entry for applications developers so that they might be able to 
develop competing software on the Microsoft platform, as well as on 
other computing platforms.
    Please reconsider the settlement in favor of stronger penalties.
    Peter McCombs
    perotsystems
    (801) 852-5773



MTC-00019144

From: Nick Grande
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe Microsoft should set aside money to be managed by an 
independent entity to be distributed to the nation's poorest schools 
rather than the donation of software. The donation of software would 
not be a punishment at all as it would not cost Microsoft any money 
at all to donate the software (as it already does to many colleges). 
Furthermore, the donation of Microsoft software which is mostly 
oriented to Microsoft's Windows platform would encourage schools to 
favor that platform and further entrench Microsoft into a sector 
they do not already dominate. This would in fact be rewarding 
Microsoft for breaking the law and not be a punishment. I strongly 
urge you to not allow this to happen. Thank you for your time.
    Nick Grande



MTC-00019145

From: Micah Cowan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is insufficient.
    Yours Truly,
    Micah Cowan



MTC-00019146

From: Kyle L Bittinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Kyle Bittinger
    40 Orvis Rd
    Arlington, MA 02474
    I am concerned about the implications of the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust settlement on consumers like me. Notably, in the proposed 
settlement, the definition of a competitor is limited to a for-
profit business. However, for example, the largest competitor for 
Microsoft's network software is the freely distributed Apache 
software. I feel that such ``open source'' applications 
will be a valuable resource for consumers, and that, in the least, 
they should be included in the definition of 
``competitors.''
    Thank you,
    Kyle Bittinger



MTC-00019147

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. After reviewing the proposal, it is 
my belief that it is insufficient to curtail Microsoft's unethical 
business practices which are hurting the computer industry.
    One particular change I recommend is that Microsoft be required 
to publically release on the Internet full documentation for all of 
it's API's and file formats, such as those used by Microsoft Office. 
This would allow competitors to create software that is compatible 
with Microsoft's.
    I would also like to suggest that you do not allow Microsoft to 
exclude Open Source software from any settlement that is reached. 
One of the proposed settlements from MS would require MS to release 
documentation *ONLY* to ``Registered Businesses'' This 
would exclude open source deveolopers, who frequently release 
software for free that needs to be compatible with Microsoft APIs.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Wolfe
    Research Assistant
    College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
    Penn State



MTC-00019148

From: Brian J Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not approve with the settlement as it stands. This company 
is hurting US business by intentionally selling a second rate 
product which is easily targetted by virus programmers. They need to 
be punished in a harsh way for the way they treat other companies, 
and for the headaches they've caused myself and others.



MTC-00019149

From: Pulsipher, Jesse
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. I don't think it does 
enough to punish Microsoft, nor does it do anything to prevent the 
same thing from happening in the future. Please reconsider the 
proposal.



MTC-00019150

From: Lori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First, I'd like to share an e-mail of a chat I had with a 
Gateway sales rep:
    Topic: Customizing A New Notebook
    Lori Can I have Windows XP removed before shipping?
    Carson hi. welcome to gateway country. my name is carson, your 
esales advisor. may i please have your phone number in case this 
chat disconnects?
    Lori 920-339-9708
    Carson thanks. let me check
    Carson which laptop do you want to purchase? and which operating 
system do you want?
    Lori I was considering the Solo 1400se. I'd prefer either 
Mandrake 8.1 or RedHat 7.2
    Carson i see. we cannot send a laptop w/o an operating system. 
Lori Why is that?
    Carson licensing agreement.
    Lori With who?
    Carson microsoft
    Lori What are my options then-I take it Linux is not an 
option?
    Carson correct. we can load xp, win2000, or 98.
    Lori Okay. Thanks for your time-I'll check back in the 
future and see if those agreements might change.
    Carson ok. you're welcome. thank you. bye.
    Carson eSales Advisor 1-800-846-2036 x55238
    [email protected] 11410671:6051783
    My main concern here is that I do not want a Microsoft operating 
system forced upon me. I do not want to be forced to pay for 
something I will not use and will immediately wipe when I receive my 
new PC/laptop. I do not mind if companies will not provide an 
alternative OS as long as they will be able to provide NO operating 
system, at my discretion. We should not now, or ever, be forced to 
pay for what we do not want simply because of a ``licensing 
agreement'' forced upon a PC manufacturer by a monopolistic 
company such as Microsoft.
    Second point, I do not believe that allowing Microsoft to 
continue to have a competitive advantage over other software 
companies by sharing information before new releases with other 
Microsoft ``divisions'' but not outside companies. This is 
one of the main reasons that Borland's compilers are no longer 
#1-Microsoft shared pre-release information with their 
compiler ``division'' (what a joke) which allowed them to 
be on the market with support for new revisions of the OS before 
anyone else, offering them a distinct competitive advantage.
    Third point, the inclusion of software such as Windows Media 
Player and Internet Explorer are extremely anti-competitive.The 
answer from Microsoft about ``integration with the OS'' 
was once bunk, but now that they've been given time they HAVE 
integrated such software with the OS and there is no way to remove 
it without a 

[[Page 26681]]

complete rewrite of the OS. WHile it may not be 
possible to reverse the damage that has been done, it can be 
prevented. I take no issue with Microsoft developing and selling 
such software, but it should NEVER be included with the OS. The 
operating system should be ONLY an operating system and nothing 
more. Offering the products on an additional CD for free is fine, as 
long as other companies have the same opportunity. Let them offer it 
like AOL- on unsolicited free CDs.
    Thank you,
    Lori MacVittie



MTC-00019151

From: Daniel Harrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this letter to express my concern for what appears 
to be the lenient treatment of Microsoft resulting from the anti-
trust trial. As an intentional user of non-Microsoft software, I 
find that the company continues to exercise its influence over 
software acceptance in virtually every arena, and this activity 
continues blatantly, even after the findings from the anti-trust 
trial.
    The recent release of the Windows Media format (predominantly 
post-trial) provides an excellent example of how pre-trial behavior 
continues unchecked. Just a few years ago, Apple's Quicktime was the 
predominant multimedia format. This was followed soon afterwards by 
streaming solutions by companies like Real. The Microsoft analogue, 
Windows Media format, has been available for a comparatively short 
time, and yet has drawn quick acceptance, primarily due to its 
rampant availability. Testimony from the trial shows that this sort 
of activity was planned, and one can see from the dominance of 
Internet Explorer that similar results are inevitable in the 
multimedia realm without some sort of intervention.
    Microsoft has become a monopoly. Definitive steps must be taken 
to check their influence on the software industry and allow for 
competition in this realm. I would encourage that steps be taken to 
even the playing field, with less concern to the effects that such 
steps might have on Windows users as a whole. While appropriate 
measures might have short-term negative effects on the company and 
the nation, these temporary issues should only be seen as direct 
results of the monopoly itself-and as beneficial steps in the 
long run.
    The nation's attention to this issue is clearly an indication of 
how important it has become. Similarly, the outcry from non-Windows 
users should provide some sense of how fragile their futures may 
feel under the threat of a company like Microsoft. Marginalization 
happens easily and quickly in the software industry (note companies 
like Lotus and their 1-2-3 spreadsheet and Ami word 
processor, former competitors and leaders in their respective 
fields). Please move quickly to preserve an open arena for large and 
small software companies alike.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Harrington



MTC-00019152

From: John Millington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: The proposed settlement is unacceptable 
and it is incompatable with the interests of the American People.
    The biggest problem is this: A criminal should not be allowed to 
profit from their crimes. The remedy should include a punitive 
measure to deprive them of all illegally (as determined in the 
findings of fact) gained revenues to date.
    If this is not done, then justice is not done and the problem is 
not remedied.
    Thank you,
    John Millington, a Software Developer in Albuquerque, NM



MTC-00019153

From: Ryan, Thor
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 7:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Break them up, its' the only solution that will work. I've 
worked in the tech industry for 5 years, and Microsoft has used it's 
monopoly to push down innovation and bully people into buying their 
products. How can you make a profit innovating when Microsoft 
bundles it's software for free at first, then jacks the price up 
later when competition is scarce?
    Thor Ryan
    WIC Help Desk
    (907) 465-3105
    [email protected] 
 



MTC-00019158

From: Robert Oneto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:05pm
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:
Robert J. Oneto
5613 Holland Ln.
San Jose CA 95118-3425
    The proposed final judgement in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case, is 
insufficient to prevent future abuses of monopoly position, and 
fails to deny Microsoft the fruits of their illegal activities. 
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I work for a company that produces software which 
operates on multiple platforms including Windows, and am also an 
end-user of several Microsoft Operating Systems, Middleware and 
Applications both at work and at home.
    The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft (MS) has a monopoly 
on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, and that the company's 
market position is protected by a substantial barrier to entry, and 
that Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act 2 for illegally 
maintaining its monopoly. According to the Court of Appeals ruling, 
``a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek to 
``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct'', to 
``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the 
fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no 
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future''. 
Like all those found guilty of a crime, Microsoft need to be 
punished for their actions-ideally in a way that attempts to 
restore competition and undoes the damage inflicted on the consumer 
by their anticompetitive behaviour. MS has profitted greatly from 
their behaviour, and the fruits of their illegal actions must be 
denied to them. Previous court ordered remedies have shown that 
Microsoft willfully ignores and attempts to circumvent any 
restrictions placed on them by careful selection of the language 
used in these remedies, and stalling with continued appeals such 
that by the time a resolution occurs, there is no surviving 
competition.
    Microsoft show no signs of remorse or attempts to change their 
pattern of behaviour. Indeed, while conceding certain points on 
existing Operating Systems (OS), they are careful to ensure that 
applications (such as Microsoft Office Suite) and future products 
such as .NET are excluded from any restrictions. It is clear from 
their pattern of behaviour that they will attempt to monopolise 
these markets, and that nothing but the most severe restrictions on 
their behaviour will have any effect.
    Since many of the companies adversely affected by Microsoft are 
no longer operating due to the illegal monopoly, it is hard to make 
reparation to them. Rather, the remedy must seek to redress the harm 
done to the consumer, and to prevent Microsoft continuing to use its 
illegaly gained market dominance to monopolise new markets. It is 
apparent that Microsoft traditionally gains dominance in a new 
market buy tying sales of one product to sales of another-for 
example, the bundling of Microsoft Office with Windows, and the 
intimidation of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure 
that this continues to the exclusion of competitors. Their willful 
circumvention of previous court restrictions, which violate the 
spirit if not the exact letter of the agreements, indicate that MS 
must be given no latitude in which to avoid punishment. The only 
option remaining if this is true, is a structural remedy. Structural 
Remedy:
    The existing MS corporation must be split into at least 5 
separate companies, each of which is barred from operating in the 
other 4 areas or joining with one of the other compnaies for a 
period of not less than 10 years. The company should be split along 
the following lines:-Operating Systems, Computer Programming 
Languages (must include .NET and C#), Applications (such as MS 
Office), Hardware (including XBox), and Internet Services (MSN etc).
    Microsoft continually use their monopoly position in each of 
these sections to dominate others- and must be denied the 
opportunity to do so in the only method it appears that will work. 
It is imperative that the .NET be split from all other services, 
since it is clear MS intends to use this to tie in future 
applications and services and ``lock out'' competing 
products. Previous anti-trust cases which have resulted in large 
corporations being split extensively detail prohibitions on these 
individual companies.


[[Page 26682]]

    It is clear that despite all evidence pointing to a structural 
remedy as being the only solution, the courts are unlikely to impose 
such a remedy. Whether or not this is implemented, the following 
aspects of MS illegal behaviour must be addressed.
    Consumers Overcharged and Require Compensation:
    In addition to monopolising markets, the consumer has been 
harmed by Microsoft products being overpriced than would have 
occurred had competition been available. Once again, Microsoft must 
be denied any profits from their illegal activities. The consumer 
must be recompensed for this, and so a substantial cash fine should 
be levied against MS, which would then be divided amongst all 
registered users of Microsoft products. This fine should be no less 
than 1 billion US dollars-note that MS currently have cash 
reserves of over $35 billion and this is increasing rapidly-it 
is a small fine to MS.
    Should this not prove to be practical, then MS should still be 
fined, but with the money going to the purchase of computer and 
computer related hardware for schools, colleges and charity groups. 
MS should not be allowed to provide software for these systems, and 
alternatives such as Apple computers or free software such as Linux 
must be used instead. This will not only return some benefit to the 
consumer, but prevent further harm done to MS competitors.
    Applications Barrier to Entry:
    Significant barriers exist to competing products in the 
marketplace due to Microsofts illegal monopoly. These must be eroded 
and removed in the following ways:
    By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, Internet Access 
Providers (IAPs), Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), and 
Independant Hardware Vendors (IHVs) who support or develop 
alternatives to Windows.
    All APIs and file formats (MS Word, MS Excel, MS Access, MS 
Powerpoint, MS Outlook and Outlook Express, WMP-the Microsoft 
Middleware Products) should be available to ISVs and HSVs. File 
formats should be open and available for public viewing at no cost. 
Any changes made to APIs and file formats must be announced and 
specified a period of time must have passed before these changes are 
implemented (e.g. 180 days for APIs and 90 days for file formats). 
Current definitions of APIs allow MS to avoid releasing 
documentation on many important interfaces. File formats, while an 
important barrier to entry, are currently not included in the 
proposed settlement and must be publicly disclosed.
    Wording of the licence agreement for ISVs accessing APIs and 
documentation shall state that it will solely be for the purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product or with 
application software written for Windows. Current phrasing limits 
this to OS only. Definitions of requirements for companies or 
individuals to access APIs should be publicly available and 
independently enforced-MS should have no say in this part of 
the decision process.
    All patents covering the Windows APIs must be disclosed. 
Currently those ISVs producing Windows-compatible operating systems 
are uncertain if they are infringing on Microsoft software patents.
    Wording of the current proposed final judgement should not 
prevent ISVs using released APIs to make alternative OSs compatible 
with Windows based OSs. Forced Upgrades Must be Stopped:
    MS abuses its monopoly postion by forcing consumers to upgrade 
from older products to newer ones, at substantial cost. Since there 
is now no effective competition due to the illegal actions, the 
consumer has no alternative but to go with MS products. By altering 
file formats in latest releases that are incompatible with older 
versions, and by removing older products from sale, MS force the 
consumer to upgrade.
    To prevent this, file formats for all Office Applications and 
WMP must be publicly available at no cost to allow alternatives to 
be developed. This is mentioned in detail above.
    To prevent the removal of older products that are still viable 
applications, Microsoft must continue to support older products for 
at least 15 years after their introduction. MS may choose not to 
support the software during this time citing that it is not a useful 
product, in which case it is allowed to do so but must make the 
entire MS source code to the application publicly and freely 
available. Under these circumstances, users may maintain and compile 
the software themselves. This will apply to operating systems as 
well as middleware and applications. Prohibiting practices towards 
OEMs:
    In addition to current restrictions in the Proprosed Final 
Judgement (PFJ), Microsoft must be restricted against reprisals for 
OEMs that sell PCs with a competing OS but no Microsoft OS. The PFJ 
requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform terms and at 
published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing about smaller 
OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against smaller OEMs 
if they offer competing products. There should be selected 
``groups'' of OEMs of varying sizes, for example OEMs 
1-20, 21-100, 101-1000, 1001+, and in those bands 
prices must be uniform and published on all MS OS, Applications, and 
Middleware products. Market Development Allowances (discounts) to 
OEMs must be fully disclosed in public. Discounts may not be given 
in one product (e.g. Office Applications) due to sales in another 
product (e.g. OS). This will prevent MS using its OS dominance to 
move its monopoly into other areas.
    Enforcement:
    MS will attempt to circumvent all remedies to the best of their 
ability. Strong, independent and effective supervision of MS is 
necessary, and a panel of several industry experts (chosen by the 
courts and complainants, with minimal input by MS) must be allowed 
full and unfettered access to MS documents. They will be provided 
with support staff, and be paid for by MS at competitive rates given 
their experience. This panel should have the ability to force 
release of MS documentation and source code, and delay the release 
of products until compliance is complete. Any undisclosed APIs 
discovered should result in a large cash fine. Current proposed 
enforcement allows no incentive for MS to comply with the remedy. 
Some of the above stated remedies may seem extreme, but given the 
magnitude of the MS corporation and the extend to which it has 
broken the law, the remedies must be of a similar magnitude. As 
stated in the first few paragraphs, the intent of any remedy is to 
restore competition, terminate the monopoly, deny the benefits of 
the illegal actions, and prevent such abuses from ocurring in the 
future. Due to the uncooperative nature of MS, the remedy must be 
decisive and strongly enforced.
    While MS has already done considerable harm to the consumer by 
its illegal actions, there are many future markets in which MS can 
gain a further monopoly-and exacerbate the problem. They must 
be prevented from doing so. If an individual commits a crime where 
the public have been illegaly overcharged that individual will be 
fined, and perhaps imprisoned-and certainly would be if he was 
a repeat offender shown to ignore previous court orders. Microsoft 
must be no different, or justice will not be done, and will not be 
seen to be done.



MTC-00019160

From: Patrick McLeod
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft's Proposed settlement is a horrible idea. 
Do not let Microsoft get away with illegal actions!
    Do I dare
    Disturb the universe?
    In a minute there is time
    For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
    T.S. Eliot



MTC-00019162

From: Alex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the proposed settlement does not address the 
correct issues. In it's current form the settlement will have little 
effect in the software industry.
    Alexander Kazura
    Pittsfield, Massachusetts



MTC-00019164

From: Monty Walls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (aka hang-em)
    I have read the proposed settlement and find it delusional/
insulting. Why should Microsoft be rewarded for business practices 
that were found illegal, and why should Microsoft be allow to retain 
the fruits of illegal actions.
    Additionally Microsoft's conduct during the trial if committed 
by a common citizen would land that citizen in jail (tampering with 
evidence, faking evidence, Microsoft's counsel lying/misleading a 
federal judge).
    So yes, you should consider this a vote against the current 
settlement. -Monty Walls
    Norman, Oklahoma
    Monty Walls ([email protected])
    MIS, Oklahoma Tax Commission


[[Page 26683]]


    My opinions are my own, my employer knows nothing about it.



MTC-00019165

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:07pm
Subject: In Opposition to the Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the proposed Microsoft Anti-trust 
settlement as it is written is in the public's best interest. 
Considering Microsoft's history of anti-competitive behavior, I do 
not feel that the settlement is harsh enough or will effectively 
curb the wreckless power that Microsoft wields.
    I would like to see competition in the Operating System market. 
As a consumer, I want to be able to choose an operating system based 
on such factors as price, security, ease of use, and stability. 
Currently, the only factor I have in choosing my operating system is 
the applications that will run on it. As the majority of commericial 
software is developed for Microsoft Windows operating systems, it is 
clear that Microsoft API's have become an industry standard. As a 
standard, Microsoft must publicly release documentation for all its 
API's so that Windows compatible operating systems may be created. 
Otherwise, competition in the operating system market will never 
exist. Microsoft must also be prohibited from using restrictive 
licensing terms and intentional incompatibilities, as it done in the 
past for would-be competitors. Though the issue of a competitive 
operating system market should have been a key part of any Anti-
trust case against Microsoft, the proposed settlement does not 
address it at all.
    In addition, I feel the proposed settlement lacks a means to 
enforce itself.
    Sincerely,
    Eric M. Schatz



MTC-00019166

From: Kevin Heater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Heater



MTC-00019206

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    While I am not a U.S. citizen the effects of Microsoft (MS) as a 
U.S.-based company does have influence on my everyday life.
    As a 25-year-old student in the Netherlands I can say that:
    (1) I'm not very financially self-sufficient (in other words: I 
haven't the money to pay for software)
    (2) For all the work I'm required to do I need MS software 
products and third party software that ONLY works with the MS 
Windows operating system (OS)
    (3) There's no way to use proprietary-format documents on MY 
CHOICE of office-productivity software but MS Office. Hence the need 
to borrow a computer elsewhere or make ``illegal'' copies 
of it.
    In a nutshell what I am trying to say is: I want CHOICE! I want 
the freedom to choose for myself again what I work with without it 
being thrust upon me by my employer/educator/otherwise. MS and its 
platform is so ubiquitous, so omnipresent it's sickening and 
revolting.
    The only place I can decide for myself HOW I do what I need to 
do is at home where I successfully use other (free) operating 
systems such as FreeBSD, Linux, OS/2, BeOS.
    I actually enjoy using 3 different internet browsers.
    But because MS Internet Explorer (MSIE) is used by 70% (or was 
it 90?) of the world's browsing public AND has many proprietary 
(thus: secret) formatting working inside, more and more websites 
only cater to the MSIE-using public (it's simple economics) leaving 
the rest out in the cold.
    This includes more and more GOVERNMENT websites for which 
citizens pay yet many can't use as we are denied acces for not using 
a ``correct browser''.
    If only the MS strongarm tactics would cease for a while, the 
world+dog would realise how counter-productive this situation is. 
Sadly, most new computer users and businesses and retailers are as 
complacent as they are gullible MS consumers.
    I WANT CHOICE!
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Neman



MTC-00019207

From: Mcsoccer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    My name is Matthew Colyer. As a citizen of the United States I 
feel that Microsoft Settlement is inadequate. It does not deal with 
the issue of Microsoft's restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs. 
I would like to be able to buy a computer without Microsoft Windows 
and not pay the licensing fee if I choose.



MTC-00019209

From: Dan Shown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft needs 
to be penalized HARD for their bad behavior!
    Thank you!
    Daniel E.C. Nunez-Shown
    Administrative Secretary
    Philosophy Department
    Saint Louis University
    3800 Lindell Blvd., HU 130
    Saint Louis, MO 63108
    mailto: [email protected]
    http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/philos/
    tel 1.314.977.3149
    fax 1.314.977.3696



MTC-00019210

From: Claburn, Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department,
    A fine is insufficent for a company with $20 billion in the bank 
and a monopoly to recoup any losses. Ultimately, operating systems 
should not be in private hands. They should be open, like other 
critical resources such as the ocean or the highway system. Demand 
that Microsoft make its source code public. Or accept Judge 
Jackson's plan to break the company in two. Regardless of his poor 
judgement, he had the right idea.
    Thomas Claburn, Senior Editor
    Ziff Davis Smart Business Magazine
    50 Beale Street, 13th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 415/
547-8122 (v) *
    415/547-8029 (f)
    http://www.smartbusinessmag.com
    http://www.lot49.com



MTC-00019211

From: Michael Ebert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Indeed, Microsoft has pulverized many of its competitors. And 
not by having better products, mind you, or by merely pursuing its 
own success, but by actively limiting its competitors'' chances 
of success. I hope that the subtleties of these differences in 
approach will not be lost on you; therein lies the whole concept of 
``unfair business practices''.
    The proposed settlement does little to reverse or repair this 
damage; if Microsoft should be forced to donate to needy schools, it 
should be forced to donate its competitors'' software and 
hardware solutions exclusively. This will increase its 
competitors'' market share and help make inroads toward fairer 
competition in Microsoft's markets.


[[Page 26684]]

    Thanks for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Ebert



MTC-00019212

From: Kris Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement, as is, is very inadequate. more needs 
to be done to limit Miscrosoft's monopolistic tendencies. Free 
market encourages competition, but microsoft does not. it is not in 
the best interest of anyone (those financially tied to miscrosoft 
aside) to allow them continue their systematic elimination of anyone 
who can compete. technology is so tightly ingrained in the future of 
our lives, indeed most likely all of humanity, to allow one company 
to control the market. listen to the people. give us what we want. 
its your job.



MTC-00019213

From: bruce parks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:16pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think that it is an outrage that companies such as microsoft 
are able to buy their way out of legal difficulty. I think that the 
judicial system is setting a poor example for the already jaundiced 
American people when it comes to accountability and fairness is 
business practices. Somewhere, sometime, someone must begin to hold 
business to a set of ethical standards that is is keeping with who 
we say we are as Americans. Without such accountablity we will 
continue to see companies exibiting the cavalier attitudes of 
Microsoft and Enron.
    Bruce Parks



MTC-00019214

From: Benjamin Hannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I wanted to notify you on my disgust with the current settlement 
pending for the Microsoft Trial. Personally I feel this settlement 
is no more then a slap on the wrist. This is not Microsofts first 
offense of anti-competitive practices. Personally I feel barring the 
idea of a Microsoft break-up was poor decision. Personally I feel 
breaking up Microsoft is one of the only ways to solve this problem. 
It was done to IBM, AT&T, and others so why was that option 
removed for the Microsoft case. Personally it looks like favortism 
to me.
    Thank you for your time reading this. Benjamin Hannon
    PC Applications Programmer
    Williamsport, PA



MTC-00019215

From: Matt Helsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As an engineer who has watched with suprise the continuing 
business practices of Microsoft corporation, I am shocked to find 
that the proposed settlement between the United States and Microsoft 
lacks any remedy whatsoever. In fact, the settlement seems to 
condone Microsoft's behavior. The settlement legitimizes anti-
competitive behavior that cripples the open source 
community-widely regarded as the primary force capable of 
competing with Microsoft. Also, I do not believe a board of 3 people 
will be capable of impartially overseeing the business practices of 
Microsoft. I believe another remedy, that is not subject to 
manipulation by Microsoft, should be found. The compromise of some 
of their intellectual property should be the price they pay for over 
a decade of anti-competitive behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Helsley



MTC-00019216

From: Don Krause
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the proposed Microsoft settlement, 
where Microsoft will provide 1 billion dollars of equipment and 
software to under privileged schools.
    The big problems are:
    1> That is traditionally an Apple Computing Stronghold. How 
is letting Microsoft push out it's LAST major competitor in the 
market where Microsoft is weakest, punish Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior?
    2> The so-called ``donation'' of software to these 
same under privileged schools, is going to lock them into the HIGH 
DOLLAR cost of yearly upgrades, and with Microsoft's new ``Open 
License'' program, it will cost these schools millions in 
yearly support fees. How does forcing these under privileged school 
to pay Microsoft millions of dollars each year punish Microsoft for 
it's behavior?
    Please reconsider this settlement, as it only BENEFITS 
Microsoft. Don Krause, ph:
    909.799.8327 Systems Administrator, page:
    909.512.0174
    Optivus Technology, Inc, e-mail:
    [email protected]



MTC-00019218

From: Paonia Ezrine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is VERY bad idea.
    Thanks
    Paonia



MTC-00019219

From: Andrew Trieger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:09pm
Subject: I support microsoft breakup.
    I feel the people will be best served by splitting microsoft 
into two companies, one that builds and maintains and improves the 
operating system and one that does the same with applications that 
run on top of the operating system.
    For definitions of what is ``an operating system'' and 
what is ``an application'', industry leaders, academia and 
other knowledgeable people should be polled, as its common knowledge 
in the computer science industry what constitutes each. It is only 
Microsoft that tries to blur the line between the two.
    Thank you,
    Drew Trieger
    Chicago, Il.



MTC-00019220

From: Tom and Naomi George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. As a 
linux user and a windows user I am concerned that the settlement 
does not sufficiently redress the fact that Microsoft has used both 
restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities to discourage 
users from running Windows applications on Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems. I am an independent scholar and my 
field of expertise is not computer science, but I depend on my 
computer system to give me secure and reliable operations. I can no 
longer depend on Windows alone to accomplish this. One of my main 
concerns has to do with future compatibility of new documents and 
archives of documents. Many Microsoft documents are specific to 
windows and cannot be opened under other systems. Worse, developers 
who wish to create portable systems cannot even be assured they will 
receive information needed to develop those systems because no part 
of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any information about file 
formats, even though undocumented Microsoft file formats form part 
of the Applications Barrier to Entry. Moreover, information would 
almost certainly not be released in time for competing middleware 
vendors to adapt their products to meet the requirements of section 
III.H.3, which states that competing middleware can be locked out if 
it fails to meet unspecified technical requirements seven months 
before the final beta test of a new version of Windows.
    Thanks,
    Tom George
    270 Roycroft Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15234
    412-563-1164



MTC-00019221

From: Raj Singh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement is much too weak because it 
does not address Microsoft Office, Microsoft .NET, or security 
protocols. Microsoft Office
    A large part of my many people (myself included) feel that they 
must own and run a Microsoft operating system is to communicate with 
Microsoft Office users. The file formats for Office documents should 
be open and available. Security
    Many in the developer community are worried about being shut out 
of developing 


[[Page 26685]]


applications that work with Microsoft operating 
systems and applications because they won't have access to the 
security protocols being used. The settlement addresses transfer 
protocols, but needs to better address the authentication and 
encryption of the messages being transferred. Microsoft .NET
    I run a software company that builds Web services as its 
business. We have a small software niche, and therefore need to 
interoperate with software from other companies. We happen to deploy 
our services on machines running Unix operating systems. This means 
we are afraid of being unable to interoperate with Microsoft .NET 
services, which might destroy our business, or force us to be .NET 
developers. This is the most important hole in the settlement, as 
Microsoft executives have stated that they expect .NET to be the 
future of all application deployment.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Raj Singh -
    Raj Singh, Syncline
    [email protected]
    +1(617)986-1000 x205
    373 Washington Street
    Boston, MA



MTC-00019222

From: Miles Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I believe this settlement is not adequate given the 
findings of fact in the trial. The courts have repeatedly tried to 
change Microsoft behaviour. The past attempts have not worked. The 
proposed settlement is just more of the same. The provisions within 
the settlement only formalize the status quo. In the past Microsoft 
has benefited greatly by ignoring the letter and spirit of judical 
decrees. The proposed settlement again attempts to improve their 
behaviour by decree. It did not work before. It will not work now. 
In order to be effective, I believe that a solution should include 
serious structural and punitive components. The proposed settlement 
lacks both of these elements. To be just, it must punish past law-
breaking. To be effective it must change Microsoft or it's 
environment so that it will stop damaging the interests of the 
United States. At the very least, something has to change so that 
Microsoft is not richly rewarded every time they break the law. The 
proposed settlement is unjust, incomplete and non-functional. While 
the Court's desire to achieve a settlement is well-intentioned, it 
is wrong to adopt an non-functional settlement just for settlement's 
sake.
    Miles Johnson
    [email protected]
    245 W 375 N
    Hyde Park, Utah 84318



MTC-00019223

From: Michael Turk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Similar to the settlement against 
AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, 
until its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for 
example, assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). This 
must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is 
lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Michael Turk
    6262 Rapidfall NE
    Belmont MI 49306
    [email protected]



MTC-00019224

From: Mike O'Donnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to comment on the proposed Final Judgment in United 
States v. Microsoft, as provided in the Tunney Act.
    I find that the proposed judgment is insufficient by a large 
margin to restore healthy competition in the computer operating 
systems and software application markets, so it is not in the public 
interest and should not be affirmed by the court.
    The proposed Final Judgment attempts to remedy Microsoft's 
established illegal anticompetitive practices by prohibiting 
particular forms of conduct involving overly restrictive licensing 
terms, terms that vary in order to reward those who accept and 
punish those who contest a Microsoft monopoly, and terms that make 
switching to competing products more difficult or more costly. It 
also prohibits certain forms of retaliation against OEMs who support 
products competing with Microsoft's products. It also requires 
Microsoft to disclose APIs and communication protocols for its 
products under certain circumstances and for certain purposes.
    It is inherently difficult, and perhaps impossible, to remedy 
Microsoft's particular forms of illegal anticompetitive behavior 
through conduct remedies. Both the underlying concepts in which 
conduct remedies are defined, and the particular anticompetitive 
techniques used by Microsoft change far too rapidly, and Microsoft 
itself has far too much influence on those changes, for them to 
serve in the foundation of effective conduct remedies.
    The remedies in the proposed judgment refer to concepts of 
``API,'' ``operating system,'' 
``middleware,'' ``application,'' ``platform 
software,'' ``top-level window,'' ``interface 
elements,'' ``icons,'' ``shortcuts,'' 
``menu entries.'' The definitions of these concepts are 
not robust and timeless. Compared to concepts in other branches of 
business and engineering they are relatively ephemeral, 
controversial, dependent on rapidly changing technological context, 
and subject to deliberate manipulation by Microsoft. For example, an 
``operating system'' in the 1960s was a software system to 
organize the basic functionality of a computer, and it contained 
little or no user interface code. In the 1970s ``operating 
systems'' often contained substantial collections of utility 
applications and rudimentary interactive user interfaces called 
``shells.'' In the 1980s, the X Window system was created 
as a form of what is now called ``middleware'' to provide 
a graphical interactive user interface, used widely in conjunction 
with Unix operating systems. Apple and Microsoft created similar 
graphical interactive user interfaces, but defined them to be parts 
of their operating systems, rather than additional middleware. In 
the near future, distributed and network computing are likely to 
make it quite difficult to determine the boundaries of a single 
operating system. In the past, Microsoft appears to have 
deliberately manipulated the boundaries of such conceptual 
categories to create and preserve a monopoly position, and I expect 
it to continue such practices in the future. The proposed judgment 
provides definitions that narrow these already problematic concepts 
even further, making them even more vulnerable to deterioration due 
to technological change and to manipulation by Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the particular conduct requirements in the proposed 
judgment are far too narrow. Every one of the requirements is weak 
in some way. For example, consider the requirement to 
``disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole 
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product 
.... the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft 
Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System 
Product.'' Microsoft and other software vendors like to treat 
their Applications Product Interfaces (API) as intellectual 
property. But in good engineering practice these are key parts of 
the warrantable specifications of a product. This holds in 
particular for operating systems and middleware, which by their 
nature are especially intended for, suitable for, and often useless 
without interaction with other software products. APIs define the 
quality of that interaction, but they do not provide it. The 
implementation of an API in program code (which is naturally 
protected by trade secret, copyright, and patent law) provides the 
quality of interaction defined by an API. Without access to the 
complete API, the licensor of an operating system cannot 


[[Page 26686]]


employ the system freely in the way that good software 
engineering practice suggests. With complete public access 
to an API, a software company may still protect its 
implementation of the API, which contains the 
real value that it has created. Keeping an API secret does not 
correspond to keeping the inner workings of a product secret. 
Rather, it corresponds to keeping the precise function accomplished 
by that product secret.
    So the public interest calls for the widest possible 
dissemination of API documentation. But the proposed judgment 
explicitly calls for disclosure of APIs ``for the sole purpose 
of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product,'' 
and only the ``APIS and related Documentation that are used by 
Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System 
Product.'' This excludes the use of information about the API 
to provide competitive platforms for running Windows-compatible 
software. Keep in mind that Windows-compatible software does not 
necessarily come from Microsoft. Microsoft benefits from the value 
added to its operating system products by a large number of less 
powerful software houses that create Windows-compatible software. By 
holding the Windows operating system API secret, Microsoft in effect 
keeps crucial information about other companies'' software 
applications secret, denying those applications the value added by 
competing operating systems on which they may run.
    Compare the Windows market (and the preceding DOS market) to the 
Unix/Linux/Posix market. Microsoft uses secret and changeable APIs 
to effectively eliminate competition to provide alternative 
operating systems running Windows applications. A competing 
operating system must use different APIs, and therefore cannot 
support all of the same applications. By contrast, the Posix 
standard is a completely public API for Unix/Linux. Various 
companies, such as Sun Microsystems, compete to provide different 
implementations of the Posix API. Consumers may run Unix/Linux 
applications on any of these operating systems.
    Similarly, in the hardware market for processors, the 
specification of the x86 instruction set architecture (the hardware 
analog to a software API), is public. As a result, AMD competes with 
Intel to implement that architecture, with immense benefit to the 
public interest. Similar publication of standards in the overall 
functionality of personal computers led to the immensely beneficial 
competition among makers of IBM-compatible PCs. The failure to 
disclose Windows operating system APIs destroys the possibility of 
similarly beneficial competition among vendors of operating systems.
    Very similar considerations to those raised above for APIs apply 
to communication protocols (for which the proposed judgment provides 
limited disclosure) and to file formats (not covered in the proposed 
judgment). Note that Adobe made full public disclosure of its 
PostScript and PDF formats, compared to Microsoft's secrecy 
regarding Word formats, and that this disclosure served the public 
interest immensely by promoting the wide availability of PostScript 
and PDF printers and viewers.
    There are many other detailed shortcomings of the proposed Final 
Judgment, including the remaining conduct restrictions and the 
enforcement methods. I expect that other correspondents will treat 
some of them.
    Sincerely yours,
    Michael J. O'Donnell
    Professor in Computer Science and the Physical Sciences 
Collegiate Division The University of Chicago
    Senior Fellow in the Computation Institute of The University of 
Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory



MTC-00019225

From: Chris Verwymeren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is one of the poorest 
punishments I have ever seen. Microsoft has had a strangle hold on 
the computer industry too long and it is time to allow other 
companies to have a chance so that ``free enterprise'' may 
be a term that actually rings true.



MTC-00019226

From: Brian Redoutey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I Feel that the current proposed settlement is flawed. The U.S. 
government should not agree to it. -
    My email address is [email protected]
    My ICQ# is 14365452



MTC-00019227

From: Paul Williamson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    bad idea, Microsoft is getting off too easy for uncompetitve 
practices, and they are still trying to control the market with 
sneaky tricks instead of with a better product.
    Paul Williamson; A.Q. Chemist
    SCAQMD
    (909) 396-2189



MTC-00019228

From: Charles F. van der Walt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regard to the proposed Microsoft Settlement-I am very 
strongly opposed to the court accepting this settlement.
    An alternative remedy must be found that is more equitable to 
the Citizens of the United States
    Yours sincerely
    Charles F van der Walt
    12090 Pete Smith Rd
    Athens, OH 45701



MTC-00019229

From: Pete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to say that I feel that the Proposed Final Judgment 
conditions of this case are too weak and to specific and that they 
will allow microsoft to continue to bully and threaten others in the 
OS and software business. To weak, in the lack of any listed 
punishments for violation, or ways in which they(the proposed 
restrictions) will be enforced. Too specific in that it still leaves 
loopholes open by which microsoft will still be able to NOT release 
information that would allows competitor to freely compete. Further 
more, microsoft continues, (even during the anti-trust hearings) to 
sue, and bully competitors who should be protected by this 
settlement. The proposed settlement would let microsoft off easy and 
allow them to continue to threaten others in ways the are not always 
clear. In some case the very threat of MS is enough to bring down 
competitors. I feel that the proposed settlement does not go far 
enough and should be rewritten to include future OS, software, and 
prevent MS in any way, shape, or form from preventing others from 
competing.
    P.S. make sure to avoid logical flaws(ex. requirements that 
others must meet but that MS may change at any time)
    Peter Osheroff



MTC-00019230

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the proposed Microsoft Settlement totally inadequate and 
contrary to the best interests of the citizens of the United States. 
It secedes the entire Personal Computing industry to Microsoft. At a 
minimum any settlement should require unbundling the software from 
the PC hardware and prohibit vendors from requiring the purchase of 
a Microsoft operating system with their products. I don't do Windows 
why do I have to pay for it and subsidize a monopoly.
    James Giacchi
    Warren, New Jersey



MTC-00019231

From: ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please help consumers and the economy by restoring competiton in 
software. If I want to use some alternative to Microsoft products I 
must first buy a computer with Microsoft products on it, then remove 
it, then install the alternative software. But of course no new 
competitor can ever arise to challenge Microsoft on those terms. If 
I make product X and somebody must give Microsoft $100 before they 
can even try my software how can I possibly compete against that? 
IBM was investigated for anti-trust but never convicted. Still they 
were not allowed to pre-install their software onto their computers.
    That was a wonderful remedy. Banning pre-loads let sunshine down 
to the forest floor; An opening for new companies to grow up and 
innovate. IBM had been overly conservative, obsessed with forclosing 
distribution channels to their competitors rather than producing 
inexpensive and innovative products for regular people. 


[[Page 26687]]


Banning IBM software pre-loads made an opportunity for Microsoft. Now Microsoft has grown to be as oppressive as IBM ever was. They seem 
obsessed with blocking the growth of upstart companies rather than 
developing anything of their own. New versions of Windows haven't 
offered consumers anything to get excited about. Banning Microsoft 
pre-loads would set the stage for the ``next Bill Gates'' to come in 
and do something new and exciting that will capture the public 
imagination and fire the economy. That certainly won't happen until 
the government gives the current Bill Gates an 
ultimatum-``Lead, Follow or get out of the way .'' 
Simply preventing the emergence of competitors might be good for his 
bottom line, but it isn't innovation and it doesn't do much for the 
rest of us who don't happen to live in Redmond. Consumers must have 
alternatives available to them as an option. The only way to 
guarantee that is to ban software pre-loads. IBM survived this 
penalty and Microsoft will too. Allowing continued Microsoft 
software pre-loads would be a government sanctification of 
Microsoft's monopoly and a blessing to go forth and stangle more 
innovative babes in the crib like Netscape.
    -Ross Nesbitt



MTC-00019232

From: Joseph Hume
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My Opinion for what it is worth I hope that the book is thrown 
down HARD against Microsoft and the extremely monopolistic practices 
they have used to stifle innovation and restrict trade with their 
products.
    I feel that the best remedy would be to dis-integrate Internet 
Explorer, Outlook Express, Microsoft Messenger, Office and any 
number of other programs from Windows, and second, To publish every 
hook, API and call used to integrate Internet Explorer, Office, 
Microsoft Messenger, Outlook Express and every other program 
Microsoft has bundled with it's operating system.
    Again, My opinion for what it is worth.
    -Joseph Hume CNA CCNA MCSE BOFH
    Network Administrator
    Isothermal Systems Research
    511 3rd Street
    Clarkston, WA 99403
    v 509.758.2613
    f 509.758.1280



MTC-00019233

From: Niemi, Timothy
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to you because of my concern over severe 
inadequacies in the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft 
Antitrust case. I am a software engineer and have been in this 
business professionally for 13 years. I believe that Microsoft's 
behavior has stifled innovation and competition, and has hindered 
much needed progress in the software industry. The flaws in the 
settlement are so obvious that I feel that I would be wasting my 
time in discussing them. My honest opinion is that these flaws are 
intentional and that the justice system has therefore failed 
miserably and intentionally. I don't mean to be rude, that's just 
the way it looks to me.
    I will propose an alternate remedy for some of the technical 
problems. The business problems require addressing as well but that 
is not my area of expertise. Requiring Microsoft to document all of 
their API's is a good first step and I will expand on this idea. 
Microsoft's monopoly power is derived from their control over 
computing standards especially document standards. In my experience 
companies purchase new versions of Microsoft software not because it 
is the best software but because these companies have a legacy of 
documents in the various Microsoft formats, Word, Excel etc. If 
there were a competing product with 100% compatibility, I assure you 
these companies would not hesitate to switch if they believed the 
competing software was a better deal. As it is, companies have no 
real choice in upgrading their software. Even if there is a 
competing product with better performance and even a better price, 
the issue of document level incompatibility makes these products a 
non-choice. Requiring Microsoft to rigorously document and publish 
the internal format of their documents would provide a level playing 
field for competition. Competing word processor XYZ with 100% MS 
Word compatible document formats would be a very attractive product 
for many consumers and businesses. These document formats change 
with each new version of Word, therefore the formats would need to 
be finalized and released well ahead of any new version of Word. 
Otherwise competitors will be playing a never ending game of catch 
up and Microsoft will always be one step ahead.
    It is worth noting that networking standards are also being 
manipulated by Microsoft. This is an area ripe for corporate 
exploitation and it is in the public's best interest that this area 
not be controlled by a single entity. Similar safeguards need to be 
in place in this area. In closing I would just ask that you please 
consider carefully what is in the public's best interest. If the 
situation continues unabated, we can all look forward to continuing 
decades of unreliable, low quality consumer level software. Home 
computers can and should be as reliable as any other home appliance. 
Why is it that our expectations of performance in this area are so 
much lower than that of other home appliances?
    Sincerely,
    Timothy Niemi



MTC-00019234

From: Jerry Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement is a bad idea 
because it does not really punish Microsoft. It actually allows them 
to use the Education system in our country to ``hawk'' 
their products to up and coming generations. This is a really bad 
idea!!!!! Please do not allow it to be finalized.
    Jerry Stewart
    828 North 380 West
    Provo, UT 84604-3304



MTC-00019235

From: Glen Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice,
    I feel that the suggested remedy to Microsoft's monopolistic 
behavior is counterproductive, and actually serves to further their 
stanglehold on the computer industry.
    Microsoft has plenty of two things: money and software. Asking 
them to give up either will have no impact on their behavior.
    Here is the solution I support-proposed by Red Hat, Inc:
    Microsoft had proposed that, in settlement of class-action 
claims of price-gouging, the company donate computer hardware, 
software and support to 14,000 poor school districts throughout the 
United States. Under the proposed settlement, a substantial part of 
the value provided to schools would be in the form of Microsoft 
software.
    The Red Hat's alternative proposal includes the following:
    * Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software 
donation to the purchase of additional hardware for the school 
districts. This would increase the number of computers available 
under the original proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, 
and would increase the number of systems per school from 
approximately 14 to at least 70.
    * Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source 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. A Win-Win Approach
    The Red Hat proposal achieves two important goals: improving the 
quality and accessibility of computing education in the nation's 
less-privileged schools, and preventing the extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly to the most-vulnerable users.
    Sincerely,
    Glen Stewart
    733 Story Dr.
    Fairfield, OH 45014



MTC-00019236

From: Lynn Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:17pm
Subject: So I heard today that AOL is suing MS for basically the 
same things that the DOJ did. They want mon
    So I heard today that AOL is suing MS for basically the same 
things that the DOJ did. They want monetary damages and they want to 
uncouple internet explorer from windows. The irony of this is that 2 
years ago, AOL bought Netscape, which has always been IE's leading 
competitor in the browser market.


[[Page 26688]]


    BUT-AOL continued to use IE, not Netscape, as the browser 
presented to its subscribers. Yet they want financial compensation 
from Microsoft for ``killing'' Netscape by integrating IE 
with Windows, even though AOL themselves have some 33 million 
subscribers who they force to use IE over their own
    Netscape browser. Now how much sense does this make to you?



MTC-00019237

From: Paul Blair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's business practices are not going to improve if 
slapped gently on the wrist. The proposed settlement is not 
sufficient. Please, don't let this proceed.
    Paul Blair
    15 C Edgewater Circle
    Bluffton, SC 29910



MTC-00019238

From: Gregory Shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please count my email against the microsoft settlement. 
Microsoft has a history of predatory practices, from DR DOS, to 
Novell, to netscape. I find it revolting that the settlement would 
allow microsoft to increase it's market share in the education 
market (current dominated by apple) as a ``remedy'' to 
monopolistic practices.
    Thank you.
    Gregory ShawProgrammer, SysAdmin
    fmSoft, Inc.Network Planner



MTC-00019239

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my name to the list of citizens opposed to 
the settlement with Microsoft. It is a victory for a company that 
disregarded the law, and still practices with a monopolistic 
attitude. As an individual citizen, I would not be allowed to snub 
my nose at this country's laws as they did. And had I broken the 
law, I would not be offered a tap on the wrist such as has been 
offered. Their actions were wrong, and the settlement rewards their 
actions by having no reasonable deterrence by penalizing them 
sufficiently. They will continue to arrogantly defy the laws of the 
land, and this settlement encourages such action even on a simple 
profit basis. The penalty has to be large enough to discourage such 
actions in the future.
    Bill Jensen
    7405 Ridge Oak Ct
    Springfield VA 22153



MTC-00019240

From: Felix Miata
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement would be a gross injustice. Please 
ensure that it does not get accepted as proposed.
    ``Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in 
vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand 
guard in vain.
    Psalm 127:1 NIV
    Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.members.atlantic.net/



MTC-00019241

From: Melody Dingman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 23, 2002
    Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly United States District Court for 
the District of Columbia
    333 Constitution Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20001
    RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order Dear Judge Kollar-
Kotelly,
    Introduction
    I have read the proposed consent final judgment for USA versus 
Microsoft. As an American and a taxpayer, I am quite disturbed by 
the proposed settlement.
    It would seem the US Department of Justice allowed Microsoft to 
place many provisions in the agreement that can be used to undermine 
the free software movement. Under J.1 and J.2 of theproposed final 
order, Microsoft Corporation can withhold important technical 
information from third parties simply based on the idea that 
Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity and viability of 
its business,'' yet it turns right around and describes the 
licensing system for Linux as a ``cancer'' that threatens 
the end of both the intellectual property rights system and the 
future of research and development. Wouldn't this licensing freedom 
simply allow R&D to flourish?
    This proposed agreement provides Microsoft with a plethora of 
strategies to undermine the development of free software. Free 
Software depends on the free sharing of technical information with 
the general public, taking advantage of the collective intelligence 
of the users, who collaborate on improvements in the code. If 
Microsoft can strangle the access to technical information under a 
plan sanctioned by the court, and then use its monopolistic power 
over their clients to migrate users to proprietary Microsoft 
interfaces, it will stunt the development of any competitors. People 
would be locked in with Microsoft with no alternatives, as Microsoft 
continues to hike up its prices for its inneficient products. The 
movie industry is even known to joke about Microsoft products. A 
recent space film showed several astronauts gaining control of their 
craft only after the entire system was ``rebooted'' due to 
unknown problems with the software! Consider what Eric Raymond said 
about the way Microsoft products operate: ``Millions of people 
think that it's right, it's normal to have an operating system so 
fragile that it hangs and crashes three or four times a week and has 
to be rebooted every time you change anything deeper than the 
wallpaper. (Expletive deleted), we knew how to do better than that 
in 1975!''
    In the Halloween documents, published widely on the net, 
Microsoft executives sent internal memorandums to key personnel 
suggesting they ``dig deeply'' into their customers'' 
computer networks and eliminate any applications of Linux or Unix 
they found there. I believe the proposed settlement does not address 
this issue.
    Microsoft is also given a very short period wherein they would 
be required to monitor themselves. Five years is hardly a flash when 
you consider the case has been in court for at least eight years 
already. And even within the brief period of the term of the 
agreement, Microsoft has full license to influence the enforcement 
effort. Microsoft, despite the courts'' decision that they were 
indeed operating illegally, is given the right to select one member 
of the three who would be on the Technical Committee>
    That person would then help in selecting the third member. The 
committee is sworn to secrecy, denying the American public any 
information on Microsoft's compliance with the agreement. They are 
even PAID by Microsoft, working inside Microsoft's headquarters. It 
has been suggested that the public won't know if this committee 
spends its time playing golf with Microsoft executives, or 
investigating Microsoft's anticompetitive activities. Its ability to 
interview Microsoft employees will be extremely limited by the 
provisions that give Microsoft the opportunity to insist on having 
its lawyers present. One would be hard pressed to imagine any 
enforcement that would do less to make Microsoft accountable for its 
actions in the past, which is probably why Microsoft accepted its 
terms.
    In its 1984 agreement with the European Commission, IBM was 
required to affirmatively resolve compatibility issues raised by its 
competitors, and the EC staff had annual meetings with IBM to review 
its progress in resolve disputes. The EC reserved the right to 
revisit its enforcement action on IBM if it was not satisfied with 
IBM's conduct.
    The court could require that the Department of Justice itself or 
some truly independent parties appoint the members of the TC, and 
give the TC real investigative powers, take them off Microsoft's 
payroll and give them staff and the authority to inform the public 
of progress in resolving compliance problems. Include an annual 
report that could address complaints, as well as suggestions for 
modifications of the order that may be warranted by Microsoft's 
conduct. The TC could be given real enforcement powers, such as the 
power to levy fines on Microsoft. The level of fines that would 
serve as a deterrent for Microsoft would be difficult to fathom, 
since they have revenue of over one billion dollars a month! But one 
might make these fines more proactive by directing the money to be 
paid into trust funds that would fund the development of free 
software, an endeavor that Microsoft has indicated it strongly 
opposes as a threat to its own monopoly.
    Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything 
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an 
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is not a first time 
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct. They simply 
repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers of the 
government and members of the judiciary to justify their 

[[Page 26689]]


means to the ends. After its long history of evasion of antitrust 
enforcement and its extraordinarily anticompetitive practices 
recognized as illegal by the entire DC Circuit court, it is 
amazing they should be told to monitor themselves as discipline 
for not monitoring themselves! In one article I read recently, 
I noticed a settlement of one of the cases against Microsoft 
included allowing Microsoft to provide the schools across the 
country with free computers and software. Hmn. Tell a company 
with a monopoly they can insert their products into the last 
arena of their competitors. MacIntosh provides the government 
with computers for schools across the nation; I am sure 
Microsoft would love to displace them! Someone isn't thinking 
clearly in DC.
    Please consider all the criticisms of the settlement proposal 
and please take the time to educate yourself about the ramifications 
of another weak disciplinary action against Microsoft. I believe the 
public wants more from its court system.
    Thank you for your time.
    Melody Dingman



MTC-00019242

From: Roy Quitter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Department of Justice to carefully review every last 
word of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case, 
keeping in close mind that Microsoft's many political contributions 
do *not* entitle it to get away with nothing more than a slap on the 
wrist.



MTC-00019243

From: Robert Kluherz
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Robert Kluherz
    PO Box 33195
    Shoreline, WA 98133-0195
    January 23, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice: THE KEY 
ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE USE OF RESTRICTIVE CONTRACTS BY MICROSOFT. 
MICROSOFT SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM MANIPULATING CUSTOMERS, 
COMPETITORS AND SUPPLIERS BY RESTRICTIVE CONTRACTS
    Sincerely,
    Robert Kluherz



MTC-00019244

From: George F. Nemeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to take extreme exception to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement terms. In particular, the current settlement provisions 
make a laughing stock of ``oversight'' of anti-
competitive, monopolistic practices of which Microsoft has been 
found guilty. The continuing stifling of competition by Microsoft's 
``innovation'' which is their catch phrase for taking 
third-party ideas and folding them into their monopoly-positioned 
Windows operating system has continued. They all but killed 
Netscape, and are now poised to do the same thing with media 
players, photo processing, and other ``applications''.
    Additionally, the terms of the settlement do not address the 
issues of Open Source software interoperability or alternative 
platform/OS interoperative software development. Microsoft will 
still be allowed to corrupt existing and developing programming 
standards into ``proprietary'' Microsoft mutations. They 
have done this already with a number of Internet standards, most 
notably with the Kerberos security suite which they plan to use in 
their .NET initiative. Any satisfactory settlement *MUST* ensure 
that open source and commercial competitors are provided with low-
level programming details sufficient to preclude further Microsoft 
monopoly entrenchment. The current provision which allows Microsoft 
itself to define which companies are ``legitimate 
competitors'' means they may simply ignore any other than those 
playing on their terms. It's a farce.
    I urge you to reject the current settlement terms and seek a 
solution which provide real teeth in dealing with Microsoft's 
continuing anti-competitive practices.
    George Nemeyer



MTC-00019245

From: Sam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement comments
    To whom it may concern:
    these should be the minimum requirements for a settlement. a.. 
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. a.. 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.
    a.. 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 
then point out that if the national interest is at issue, as I 
believe it is and as the judge has suggested it is, it is crucial 
that Microsoft's operating system monopoly not be extended, and in 
this I quote the study released a year ago by the highly respected 
Center for Strategic and International Studies, which pointed out 
that the use of Microsoft software actually poses a national 
security risk. In closing, I say that all are surely in agreement 
that the resolution of this case is of great importance, not just 
now but for many years to come. This suggests a careful and 
deliberate penalty is far more important to the health of the nation 
than is a hasty one.
    a.. And the porting of the office suite and other Microsoft 
Development suites (vb, visual studio, etc) to other platforms such 
as Mac, Solaris. and Linux.
    Sam Weinstein MCSE,CNE,PPC
    [email protected]



MTC-00019246

From: Ahmad Baitalmal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 3:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I'm sending you this email to add my voice to the many voices 
asking to be heard regarding the Microsoft Settlement. While I do 
appreciate the efforts and hard work of your department in this 
matter, I do believe some key points have been missed. These points 
have been explained in great detail by Mr. Dan Kegel in his 
``Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement'' (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html). I have co-signed that letter 
also.
    From my perspective as a software developer and as a decision 
maker in my organization, I have experienced the effects of 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices first hand throughout my 
career. Through it's dominance, Microsoft has established it's 
proprietary APIs, Communication Protocols, and File Formats as 
global standards. Yet these global standards are still 100% under 
Microsoft's control. Many efforts to compete with Microsoft in 
serious fields have had to fight a technical uphill battle only to 
be thrown off by a change in the API or a new ``feature'' 
incompatibility.
    Microsoft claims that it's competitors are using the legal 
system instead of competing on the technical level. In reality that 
is exactly what these competitors are asking for; opening up the 
APIs, the Communication Protocols and the File Format standards will 
level the playing field. It then becomes a matter of pure technical 
superiority that determines market share dominance and not 
marketing, entrapment, or intimidation muscle. That will unleash the 
industry's potential energy and benefit the economy and the American 
people.
    With kind regards
    Ahmad Baitalmal
    [email protected]
    IT, Etelos
    1569 NE Hawthorne Sq.
    Issaquah, WA 98029



MTC-00019247

From: Timothy Shawn Maynard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am a controls engineer. Due to Microsoft's Monopoly they were 
able to squash 

[[Page 26690]]


competition and harm competitors unfairly. This goes 
back to the mid 80?s and the early 80?s when they used their 
business edge to overrun the home pc market. Microsoft has a history 
of predatory actions. The only proper remedy is to breakup 
Microsoft.
    Tim Maynard



MTC-00019248

From: Brad Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I 
feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software, and would like 
to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does 
not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage 
hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing 
products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers.
    Brad Miller
    Phoenix, Arizona
    [email protected]



MTC-00019249

From: Justin White-Lowther
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case is a wholly inadequate remedy to such 
anticompetitive practices as have been established by the court. 
Particularly egregious is the failure of Section III.A.2 to forbit 
retaliation against OEMs which ship personal computers including a 
single non-Microsoft operating system; this allows Microsoft to use 
its market dominance to force the inclusion of Microsoft operating 
systems on all personal computers produced by an OEM. The OEM must 
then choose between including and supporting two operating systems 
on every system or the Microsoft operating system only. As the 
former choice will often be relatively expensive and impractical, 
this section will, while nominally allowing competition, sanction 
the occurrence of said ``competition'' upon uneven terms, 
effectively reinforcing the established monopoly.
    For this reason, I strongly urge the rejection of this proposed 
settlement.
    Justin White-Lowther
    Athens, Ohio



MTC-00019250

From: Kyle Mandli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This will be short and to the point (as I really don't have the 
time to get into the specifics which I am sure a multitude of people 
already have.) I am a programmer for a company that uses Microsoft 
Windows, Apple's Max OS X and Linux. As developers we feel directly 
the pressure that Microsoft exerts on our industry to program for 
the Windows platform leaving us less resources to truly make great 
products, especially for the other platforms mentioned above. They 
have the power to select who is competitive in the industry by 
including them in their operating system (i.e. Kodak.) It is my 
belief and the belief of others that I have talked to that not only 
is Microsoft undermining the ability for other companies to compete 
with them but, more importantly, they are stifling the creativity 
and progress of the entire industry. Now to the proposed settlement. 
After looking at it I could probably write pages upon pages of 
comments on the act but I think that the following web page 
illustrates the problems with the act. www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html
    In conclusion, I appreciate the fact that this has been opened 
up to the public for comment and I hope that you at the DoJ can 
filter out the comments motivated from Corporate Sponsors from both 
Microsoft and Sun.
    I thank you for your time.
    Kyle Mandli
    Software Engineer / Researcher
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Mandli Communications, Inc.



MTC-00019251

From: John Fabiani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As normal user of computer products I demand that you breakup 
Microsoft. I am a firm believer that microsoft has done me personal 
harm in it's business practices.
    John Fabiani
    Woodland, CA 95776



MTC-00019252

From: ANDREWS SUMNER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    By not reigning in Microsoft as the Findings of Fact indicate 
the DOJ should, you have missed the one real opportunity to prevent 
this company from exerting its monopolistic behavior on a major 
portion of the US economy over the next several decades. You will 
look back on your decision and sorely regret your spineless 
response.



MTC-00019253

From: Jay Maynard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement is a very bad idea, 
as it completely ignores any past conduct on Microsoft's part and 
trusts them once again to change their behavior, even though they 
have demonstrated in the past a strong unwillingness to do anything 
but find and exploit loopholes in settlement language-and 
there are plenty of loopholes in this one. It should be 
significantly modified and strengthened, if not scrapped altogether.
    James R. Maynard, III
    Fairmont, Minnesota



MTC-00019254

From: William Clements
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please don't screw up Microsoft like AT&T. The last thing we 
need is a more screwed up Microsoft. They may have a stronghold, but 
that stronghold works. The more damage done to Microsoft the worse 
everyone in the industry is.
    Thanks.
    William Clements
    President/CEO Web: http://www.envalia.com



MTC-00019255

From: Larry Resch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I feel that you are caving in to whatever political pressure has 
been brought to bear regarding the pitiful settlement in the 
Microsoft case. Microsoft has been found (and upheld in appeals) to 
be a predatory monopolist and all the DOJ is doing is slapping them 
on the wrist and allowing them to continue to buy/steal/lie/cheat to 
gain market share in new markets and retain control in their 
existing markets. Past experience with Microsoft should show you 
that Microsoft will squirm around any rules that are invoked and not 
have to follow anything but their own instinct for domination of any 
market that they want. I feel that you should step back and listen 
to people that are not on Microsoft's payroll (including the 
politicians) and force some harsh penalties on them. Microsoft is 
not responsible for the economy and is not the sole support for the 
IT industry. Bringing competition back into the market will have a 
greater and more meaningful impact on the industry than allowing 
Microsoft to continue their dominance. Do not allow Microsoft to 
continue bundling anything they want into the operating system 
especially when its sole pupose is to gain market share from others. 
We are not crying for more capabilities (which also translate into 
more security holes for hackers)-we want an operting system 
that is stable and will allow us to get the best software out there 
to use on it!
    Your current settlement stinks!
    Larry Resch



MTC-00019256

From: Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a very bad idea, please use 
serious consideration in this matter!



MTC-00019257

From: Jack Richins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is great for the economy and competition 
and should be approved as soon as possible.
    Thanks,
    Jack Richins


[[Page 26691]]




MTC-00019258

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    . Hello
    I think the gov should settle this and get off of Microsoft's 
back. AOL should be investigated for having a monopoly.
    Dallas



MTC-00019259

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:25pm
Subject: Support and require the State to support the Microsoft 
settlement
    A free market comes from innovation and spirited and bold 
competition, Microsoft won because they had the best product. Their 
rivals could not win the support of the consumer so; they try to win 
in the courts. That's wrong. Support the settlement in favor of 
Microsoft and require the States to do the same.
    [email protected]
    Eureka,Calif 95501 3524



MTC-00019260

From: Judy Craft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement essentially legalizes the 
existing operating system / browser monopoly, and will allow 
Microsoft to do to its office suite what it did to the browser. 
Microsoft Word and Excel will become integral to the Windows 
OS-look at the tight ties between Office XP and Windows XP
    Judy Craft
    Database Analyst
    South Texas College of Law



MTC-00019261

From: Jim Patterson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. The 
proposed Settlement would have little effect upon the business 
practices of Microsoft. If adopted in its current form the result 
will be no change to the behaviour of Microsoft, and yet another 
prolonged court case in another year or so. I don't feel the 
settlement levels the playing field for competing operating systems 
or office software, and would like to see a much stronger penalty 
imposed. The proposed settlement does not sufficiently relieve 
Microsoft of the ability to leverage hardware and computer 
manufacturers unfairly against competing products, nor does it 
adequately open the Windows API to programmers.
    So, any effective settlement must concentrate on opening up the 
markets that Microsoft has effectively closed by its use of 
proprietary interfaces, file formats, protocols and strongarming 
OEM's. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this 
settlement and seek stronger action against Microsoft.
    Jim Patterson
    709 Ironbridge Road
    Cicero, IN 46034



MTC-00019262

From: Bill Bridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very concerned with the proposed Microsoft settlement. I do 
not think it will do anything to curb Microsoft's criminal behavior. 
There are too many ways for them to evade the intent of the 
settlement without violating an interperation of the wording. Their 
past behavior shows that they will attempt to avoid the intent.
    William H. Bridge, Jr
    Software Architect
    Oracle Corporation
    U.S. Citizen
    2969 Seaview Parkway
    Alameda, CA 94502



MTC-00019263

From: Donovan Lange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing today to express my opinion concerning the Proposed 
Final Judgement in United States vs. Microsoft. No part of the PFJ 
obligates Microsoft to release any information about file formats, 
even though undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry according to the ``Findings of 
Fact'', sections 20 and 39. The importance of this travesty 
cannot be overstated, and will dampen any affects to inspire a 
competitive market. My hope is that it will be remedied.
    Donovan Lange
    Software Engineer
    Carnegie Mellon University



MTC-00019264

From: Mike Coppins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You simply have to do something to stop Microsoft from simply 
progressively taking over everything technological, and slowing the 
entire industry down so innovation flows at a snail's pace!
    Microsoft are totally mocking the US govt with the further 
``integrations'' with Win2k and WinXP.



MTC-00019265

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice-
    I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a serious 
mistake, that it does not address the real issues, that it promotes 
continuance of the Microsoft practices that precipitated the problem 
in the first place, and that the settlement terms are not 
enforceable. I feel the settlement should NOT BE ADOPTED for these 
reasons.
    Scott Wilson, Ph.D.



MTC-00019266

From: Bill Denney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement against Microsoft is not 
strong enough.
    Bill Denney
    [email protected]



MTC-00019267

From: James Hasselberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00019268

From: Matthew Barker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The DOJ's proposed settlement with Microsoft is ridiculous. The 
only thing that giving Microsoft Software to schools will do is to 
entrench Microsoft even further in the marketplace. They're in an 
unassailable position now, why make it worse for competition. 
Everyone in this industry knows that if you capture education, then 
those same people will eventually become decision makers who dictate 
purchase of your software.
    Please reconsider this mess before it's too late. Microsoft is 
getting off with less than a slap on the wrist; they're getting off 
with federal enforcement of their marketing plan to become even more 
entrenched in education.
    With good wishes,
    Matthew Barker
    3408 South Court
    Palo Alto CA 94306-3550

[[Page 26692]]


    USA



MTC-00019269

From: Shawn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. To make myself clear I would like to start by 
saying I DISAGREE with the proposed settlement which I believe to be 
nothing but a slap on the wrist and will, in my opinion, solve 
little if anything. I wont recite the many things I believe fall 
short in this proposal as the bulk of my thoughts have been 
expressed by the majority of the open source community leaders. 
Instead I urge you to PLEASE RECONSIDER this action as it most 
certainly affects myself and many other legitimate business trying 
to pull from under Microsofts continued anti-competative behavior.
    Thank you for your time,
    Shawn Daley
    Director, Network Operations
    Lightning Link Communications
    Clearwater, Fl



MTC-00019270

From: Jason Scheirer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a young professional in the computer industry, and as having 
been a personal computer user for most of my life, I have watched 
competitors wither and disappear from the industry as Microsoft's 
actions have locked users into a proprietary Windows environment. I 
have a few problems with the Final Judgement:
    B.1: Microsoft already bundles several different language 
display abilities with certain newer versions of Windows such as 
2000 and XP. Allowing them to charge different royalties on each 
version, though making sense to cover costs for translation and 
technology adaptations, does not with an already multilingual 
system. This could encourage the company to split apart their 
language versions of Windows again. A decision like this is not 
beneficial to consumers, especially students of mutliple languages 
who do not have the budget to buy a more expensive version, or 
separate expansion pack, of Windows when it currently does not 
require such an aditional purchase for additional linguistic 
capability.
    E: Along with communications protocols, there should also be a 
stipulation that opens file format standards and perhaps a 
regulatory industry committee to keep the standards comaptible and 
open through the industry. A major reason that so many people use MS 
Office, aside from the OEM bundling, is because a closed set of file 
formats (such as Word's) make it difficult, if not impossible, to 
use a competing product such as Wordperfect without the application 
having to reverse-engineer the format. This forces the ownership of 
the product to exchange documents, which has caused me to buy and 
continue to upgrade Word though I use a competing Word Processor to 
be able to interchange documents with friends, family, professors 
and co-workers.
    H.1: Microsoft should make it possible to completely remove 
parts of its software from the operating system if a competing 
technology provides similar functionality at system startup.
    J.2: Require any API extension to be approved back to Microsoft. 
This still gives them an exclusive right to control and oversee all 
OS proceedings, and quite possibly reject ``non-
compliant'' extensions by a third party which it may interpret 
as a threatening or competitive technology without needing to 
legally justify that it is not simply violating section one of the 
prohibited conduct, but trying to ``maintain standards 
compliance''.
    Also, many hobbyists and not-for-profit organizations now are 
major suppliers and developers of software which competes with 
Microsoft. These non-businesses will not be technically able to be 
eligible for a ``business need'' to access such software. 
These not-for-profits are a driving force of the industry as well as 
indispensable tools to industry professionals: examples include the 
Apache group and Sendmail. Also please keep in mind that 
organizations may now be not-for-profit in the environment because 
of fear of being edged out of the industry by Microsoft's past and 
present practices. From the real world, many security holes from 
these open and not-for-profit systems have been found and have 
resulted in stabler, more secure applications due to open APIs and 
source code in some instances. For the sake of national security, 
perhaps some of the Microsoft APIs should be completely open to 
allow for outside-the-company advances in its security, which seem 
necessary in light of recent events with IIS worms running rampant 
as well as the global climate, with the U.S. being threatened by 
stealthier enemies, including ones who may exploit holes in the most 
used Operating System in the United States as a form of terrorism.
    Thank you,
    Jason Scheirer
    Riverside, California



MTC-00019271

From: John Kaiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    http://crossover.codeweavers.com/mirror/www.kegel.com/remedy/ 
Please read this!!
    John



MTC-00019272

From: Fran Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the government case against Microsoft should be 
dropped. The recent AOL suit is unjustified.
    Fran Warner
    San Jose, Ca



MTC-00019273

From: James DuWaldt
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I am writing under the Tunny Act to express my dissatisfaction 
with the proposed settlement with Microsoft. In particular, I 
believe that:
    1. Microsoft should be required to publish the specifications of 
its file formats and should explicitly agree to not prosecute anyone 
who reverse-engineers them. This will allow competitors to emerge 
for, in particular, Microsoft Office, which currently owns 
approximately 90% of the office software market.
    2. Microsoft should be required to publicly disclose the 
signiture and functionality of any operating system interface used 
by any of its applications, without any form of reciprocity from 
anyone for any reason whatsoever. All should be able to see it; the 
notion that Microsoft can withhold technical information from third 
parties on the grounds that Microsoft does not certify the 
``authenticity and viability of [the third party's] 
business'' is unnecessary (and, ironically, perhaps even an 
unfair burden on Microsoft).
    3. There should be some sort of monetary penilty for past 
misdeeds. For example, it has been proposed that Microsoft should 
give approximately 1 billion dollars worth of equipment and software 
to poor schools but it has been (correctly, I believe) noted that 
this will harm competitors. Therefore let Microsoft simply give the 
schools money, with no requirements attached to its use. Schools can 
buy computers, repair buildings, whatever, on the theory that the 
schools will know their needs better than Microsoft. Thank you for 
taking the time to read my response. I hope there is something 
useful in it for your consideration.
    James B. DuWaldt



MTC-00019274

From: Dan Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I do not believe that the currently proposed 
settlement will be effective in restraining the anti-competitive 
practices of the Microsoft corporation nor do I believe this 
settlement is in the public's interest.
    In particular I believe that the proposed remedies have been 
drafted too narrowly to effectively erode the current barriers 
preventing independent software vendors from competing with 
Microsoft products. 


[[Page 26693]]


Additionally the Proposed Final Judgment does 
not appear to have an effective enforcement mechanism. Considering 
Microsoft's history of violating decrees and their behavior during 
this proceeding this seems a grave oversight.
    I am very impressed with the revisions that have been made to 
the proposed settlement. The Department of Justice has done a fine 
job closing many of the loopholes that troubled me in previous 
versions. I have full faith and confidence in your ability to craft 
a document that will dramatically improve the software market. I am 
an independent consultant who has provided advice and service to 
over one-hundred companies. I have no loyalties to any vendor or 
system. I am engaged in the practice of seeking out the best 
solutions for my clients. To that end I have recommended solutions 
based on products from Microsoft, Novell, cisco, Apple and others as 
well as unix solutions including linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and 
Solaris. In many cases I have advised clients to standardize on 
Microsoft products even though the Microsoft offering was 
dramatically inferior and more costly than alternatives. The 
dominance of Windows combined with Microsoft's history of 
intentional barriers to interoperability (as demonstrated in Caldera 
v. Microsoft) made Microsoft the only safe choice. I have often 
counseled clients that while a system would work today Microsoft 
could make changes to their operating system that would shut down 
their network. An example (if memory serves) was Windows Service 
Release 1 (SR-1) which had extensive problems with Novell products. 
While Microsoft soon released a fix (SR-1a) the cost of the 
resulting downtime was huge.
    The only remedy that I see being effective is to require 
Microsoft to publish the specifications of all their API's and file 
formats. Unfortunately this would force Microsoft to compete fairly 
and I doubt they would go along. I have persuasive arguments for how 
this would not unfairly hurt Microsoft and would generate a new 
renaissance among programmers. But since I don't think it will 
happen in my lifetime I will stick to more practical solutions in 
this letter.
    I would like to suggest two more loopholes to address.
    Part III, Section D reads in part: ``Microsoft shall 
disclose ..., for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product ... the APIs and related Documentation that 
are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows 
Operating System Product.''
    I see two problems with this sentence.
    The phrase ``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product'' should be struck. This does 
not allow projects such as WINE  and 
Lindows  that are designed to create 
alternate environments for ISV's. This is a huge loophole which is 
also present in Section E.
    The limitation of the proposal to ``Middleware'' is 
arbitrary. If anything this is a battle that has already been fought 
and won by Microsoft. The products defined as ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' in section IV does not address vital 
technologies such as .NET, C# or even Outlook (as differentiated 
from Outlook Express, which is a different product with a similar 
name.) While there is a provision that could apply the 
``Middleware'' definition to anything Microsoft trademarks 
that clause is very broad and would not be enforceable.
    Even if an ISV (college student in his dorm room) decided to 
fight Microsoft's lawyers the war would be over before a judge saw 
the case. In most cases (such as the lawsuit Microsoft currently has 
against Lindows) the mere threat is enough to stifle competition. 
Part IV Section J reads:
    ``Microsoft Middleware'' means software code that
    1. Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating 
System Product to update that Windows Operating System Product;
    2.is Trademarked;
    3.provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a 
Microsoft Middleware Product; and
    4.includes at least the software code that controls most or all 
of the user interface elements of that Microsoft Middleware.
    Software code described as part of, and distributed separately 
to update, a Microsoft Middleware Product shall not be deemed 
Microsoft Middleware unless identified as a new major version of 
that Microsoft Middleware Product. A major version shall be 
identified by a whole number or by a number with just a single digit 
to the right of the decimal point.
    I am not a lawyer, but this section disturbs me for two reasons. 
``Microsoft Middleware'' is distributed separately from 
the Operating System. All of the products listed in Section K are 
distributed with the Operating System. Are they ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' or not? If their status depends on an alternative 
distribution method can Microsoft make any product immune to this 
proposal my only bundling it with Windows? Frankly I'm confused. It 
seems to me that the status as ``Microsoft Middleware'' is 
determined by version number. By this definition Windows XP is not a 
major revision! If the first release of a new browser is 
``Internet Explorer 12.00000000000000'' is it a major 
revision?
    I thank you for taking the time to read all the way through 
this. I know I am not a great writer.
    If you wish to hear more of my opinions you can respond by email 
or call me at (650) 274-7755.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Wright



MTC-00019275

From: chriscypher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be punished.
    I am very concerned by the current settlement proposal. When 
someone is found guilty of a crime, justice is only done when the 
felon has been punished to the extent that they have seen the error 
of their ways and will no longer continue to be a threat to old or 
new victims.
    Microsoft continues to admit no wrong doing. It is very unlikely 
that they will change their practices because what they have brought 
to the technology industry is not innovation, despite their claims, 
but ruthless appropriation of new technologies. They have used a 
myriad of illegal practices to enter niche markets. By leveraging 
their capital, their marketing propaganda abilities, and system 
software monopoly, Bill Gates'' offering to the technology 
industry is more like Attila the Hun than Edison. Microsoft lays 
seige and destroys any would-be competitors through brute force. 
Until they are bound by some legal power, they will continue to act 
in this manner.
    The current settlement does nothing to change Microsoft's 
behavior, in fact, as many industry analysts have attested, it will 
probably only extend their monopoly to new markets. This wrong must 
be corrected in such a way that competition in the industry is 
restored.
    Thanks.
    -c!



MTC-00019276

From: gil gilmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that you have given in to Microsoft.
    I think that you clearly have failed in your duty to protect 
American consumers.
    Perhaps you didn't have the talent available to fully understand 
the issues, or perhaps you didn't have the will to stand up to the 
political heat. Either way you have clearly failed.
    Thomas Ness
    6945 Silver Fox Trail
    Cumming, GA 30040
    Registered and active voter.



MTC-00019277

From: Kent Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern, And For What It Is Worth:
    Having been with Microsoft for 11 years, all located in the 
Silicon Valley selling Microsoft software to educational 
institutions, large corporations, and government agencies, I've 
never once heard from any of these customers that Microsoft was 
harming them or their work...only improving it, and providing more 
and more value in relation to price over time.
    Before you consider this case, ask yourself this simple 
question:
    How can you sue someone for giving something away for free that 
was better than what they had been paying for?
    Kent Miller
    Microsoft Corporation
    (650) 693-2935
    www.microsoft.com/net
    



MTC-00019278

From: John Siino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:32pm

[[Page 26694]]


Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is bad!
    The proposed Microsoft settlement will do nothing but reinforce 
their strangle hold on OS development. Our children will be forced 
to learn and use MS products (OS's, word processors, etc.). This 
will further entrench Windows OS's.
    John Siino (self-employed engineer)
    1667 Shadow Wood Court
    Reno, NV 89523



MTC-00019279

From: George Czerw
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/23/02 7:34pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement
    As a 30 year veteran in the networking side of the computer 
industry, I have watched as the Microsoft Corporation has been 
allowed either buy out or bury (beginning with the Digital Research 
Corporation and continuing through IBM's attempt to collaborate on 
OS/2, the Novell Corporation's marketing of NetWare and Netscape's 
marketing of its own Netscape Web browser) hundreds, if not 
thousands of what used to be innovative, independant software 
companies. Outside of stealing or buying the technologies developed 
by others, the Microsoft Corporation has done little in the way of 
true, original innovation, and in my opinion, Microsoft's financial 
success has been dependant upon allowing its arrogant, deep-
pocketed, overbearing Marketing Department to blitzkrieg its 
competitors, threaten computer hardware vendors into offering 
nothing but Microsoft's own operating system, and otherwise 
bamboozle both the government and the general public into believing 
that Microsoft's bloated, ill-conceived, poorly designed, poorly 
performing and security-vulnerable software is the best software 
offering in the world.
    I find it appalling, laughable, and sickening (yes, all three at 
once) that both the Bush Administration and the DOJ would take a 
position which suggests that a ``just penalty'' would be 
to allow the Microsoft Corporation to convert millions or billions 
of its dollars for the purpose of providing computer hardware and 
its own computer software to the US primary and secondary 
educational systems. You people must be daft, for those educational 
systems are among the few markets which have always been dominated 
by the Apple Computer Corporation, and in which the Microsoft 
Corporation has never been able to gain a significant foothold, 
despite its best efforts.
    It is past time that the Federal Government and the White House 
stopped shamelessly pandering to those special interests, 
corporations and individuals who are large campaign contributors and 
begin listening to and protecting the interests not only of the 
general public but also of the corporations and businesses who have 
not agreed with or contributed to the coffers of the party in power.
    The only thing that the Microsoft Corporation understands is 
brute force, and it deserves no less a penalty than that which was 
given to Standard Oil and AT&T.
    For the good of this country and its citizens, break Microsoft 
up into small pieces and do it now! Only then will the nation see 
some true innovation and competition in this nation's software 
industry.
    George Czerw
    Rancocas, NJ
    George



MTC-00019280

From: John Doherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft punishment
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am writing to urge that Microsoft be dealt with most severely 
for its predatory practices. Its attempt to ``cut off the 
oxygen supply'' of its competitor Netscape is particularly 
egregious. The unfairly obtained dominance of Microsoft's Outlook 
program, to show one instance, has lead to extremely efficient 
spread of viruses throughout the internet.
    Please do not let these cads go unpunished.
    Thank you,
    John Doherty
    8 Pearl Street
    Beverly, MA 01915



MTC-00019281

From: Doug Matthews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear United States Department of Justice,
    As a US citizen and computer programmer, basically someone who 
has a lot riding on the health of the technology industry in the US, 
I want to let you know how I feel about the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I do believe that the best thing for any industry is free 
and fair competition. And I do believe that at the beginning of the 
personal computer era Microsoft was a great catalyst for bringing 
the power of computers to the masses, their focus on the customer 
was second to none and their success is a testament to their hard 
work and smart management. However, Microsoft's recent behavior in 
the market place is no longer beneficial to consumers because they 
have monopoly power and have shown that they are not afraid to use 
it.
    Unless the settlement with Microsoft is reworked I'm afraid it 
will send the wrong message; that it is OK to play fast with the law 
as long as you have enough cash and enough lawyers to fight the 
court cases long enough. I am particularly worried about them 
forcing contractual restrictions on hardware vendors and also 
keeping those vendors from innovating above and beyond the standard 
Windows desktop.
    I would like to believe that some kind of oversight of Microsoft 
will work, but again, call me cynical, but Microsoft is big, 
powerful, very rich and not afraid to take on a fight, even with the 
US government.
    This really is one of those big, important cases that will shape 
the course of history, definitely the history of the technology 
industry. I really do wish that a ``hands off'' approach 
would work in this situation, but I honestly don't see that 
happening here with Microsoft, they are a monopoly and have to be 
treated as such. Did they break the law? I believe the answer is 
yes. Is the proposed remedy an appropriate punishment? I believe the 
answer is no, it is more a slap on the wrist and won't stop there 
anti competitive behavior. This is one time where we truly need the 
government to step in and right the wrongs.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Matthews
    [email protected]



MTC-00019282

From: Josh Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:33pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned about the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The 
settlement would not open up the market and lead to competition, but 
rather would have little to no effect. I hope you will consider the 
company's past successes at being unhindered by the outcome of a 
ruling or settlement. The provisions are weak, and are not 
appropriate to the state of the market or Microsoft's actions.
    -Josh Jackson
    Houston, TX



MTC-00019283

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the definitions in any final settlement should agree 
more closely with the definitions used in the Findings of Fact. The 
definitions in the Findings of Fact are much more clear and 
realistic.
    Thank you.



MTC-00019284

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sire,
    I personally am not amused with the MS ``settlement.'' 
Surely the crimes commited by MS against Netscape (RIP), with 
regards to MS yearly turnover & increases AND the number of 
years the courts have hibernated over this decision deserve a MUCH 
larger fine.
    Yours depressed
    Dr AP



MTC-00019285

From: Robert J. Berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I was shocked and dismayed when I heard the 
proposed settlement offered by the Justice Department. It had weaker 
remedies than even the US Appeals Court had already 


[[Page 26695]]


declared as sensible. Microsoft is in court as a repeat offender. 
The current antitrust suit, in which a federal district court and 
an appeals court have both affirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
and that it has abused its monopoly powers, arose out of the failure 
of a previous consent-decree settlement of an earlier antitrust case.
    Microsoft must not be given another wrist slap and allowed to 
expand even further its monopolist ways. It is now extending its 
monopoly into the entertainment, news, game software/hardware, 
cableTV and Internet. Combine this with their huge cash reserves 
(which the SEC should be looking into as to why they are not 
distributing it as dividends to their shareholders) they will be 
able to control public opinion and the politician's wallet/
mindshare. If they are not stopped now, they will shut down 
innovation in every key sector of our economy. To quote Dan Gilmore, 
Technology Columnist of the San Jose Mercury News:
    ````Sellout'' isn't too strong a word to describe 
the U.S. Justice Department's settlement with Microsoft. Neither is 
``dangerous.'' This deal, assuming it takes hold, is not 
even a wrist slap. It's a love letter to the most arrogant and 
unrepentant monopolist since Standard Oil. It's an invitation to 
keep on plundering and whacking competition in the most important 
marketplace of our times, the information marketplace. ...
    The settlement not only doesn't doesn't even force the company 
to stop doing what eight federal judges found illegal, but it 
provides no penalty for the illegal acts. Locking in the ill-gained 
profits of crime-bank robbers wish they could get such 
dispensation.'' -
    Robert J. Berger Chairman and Founder
    UltraDevices, Inc. 257 Castro Street, Suite 223 Mt. View CA. 
94041
    Home: Saratoga, CA 95070
    Email: [email protected] http://
www.ultradevices.com
    Voice: 408-882-4755 Fax: 408-490-2868



MTC-00019286

From: Ed Colmar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This settlement is a really bad idea. Microsoft deserves to be 
punished, not encouraged.
    Thanks for your time.



MTC-00019287

From: Field, Alan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a Software Quality Assurance Engineer with over 10 years of 
experience in this industry, and I believe that the currently 
proposed settlement does not do anything to level the paying field 
for Microsoft competitors or to punish Microsoft for leveraging its 
monopoly. In order to improve the settlement, it should include the 
following provisions:
    1) Microsoft must document any API used to integrate an 
application with the operating system-I don't have a problem 
if Microsoft bundles additional applications with their operating 
system. I DO have a problem when they add additional private APIs to 
their monopoly operating system so that these applications can act 
in an integrated way with the operating system. This allows the 
bundled applications to have advantages that no third-party software 
developer can duplicate. This is an unfair advantage that Microsoft 
has used in the past and will continue to use under this agreement.
    2) Microsoft must publish the specifications for their document 
formats- Many people use Microsoft applications because their 
colleagues or friends use these applications and send documents from 
these applications. If the user wants to use different applications, 
he usually can't because he can not use his existing documents in a 
non-Microsoft application. To make matters worse, Microsoft does not 
document their file formats, so third-party developers must reverse 
engineer these formats. Since most software companies are smaller 
than Microsoft, this causes a drain on their R&D departments, 
and is a substantial barrier to entry in the Office Productivity 
market segment. Microsoft should document their file formats, so 
that a computer user's data to restore choice to the Office 
Productivity market.
    3) Microsoft must not be allowed to prevent hardware 
manufacturers from installing alternative operating 
systems-This provision will help to increase competition in 
the operating systems market. The contracts that Microsoft signs 
with hardware OEMs in the past has prevented these OEMs from either 
installing other operating systems on the machine or altering the 
boot process to allow launching another operating system. This 
basically killed the BeOS. The barrier to entry in the operating 
system market is large, and this makes it even harder to compete. If 
you can't get the product installed on your hardware when you buy 
it, how will you ever appeal to a normal computer user?
    4) Microsoft should pay a big fine!-Currently Microsoft 
has a huge amount of cash on hand. Cash that is ill-gotten gains 
from abusing their monopoly power. They should be fined as an 
example to other companies that the anti-trust laws are still 
considered important in this country.
    In conclusion, I don't think the current settlement agreement 
improves competition or punishes Microsoft for their wrongdoings. 
Please try to remedy this.
    Thanks for your time,
    Alan Field
    1789 College Ave
    Livermore, CA 94550



MTC-00019288

From: Jeff Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please do something substantive to Microsoft. They must be 
stopped if we are ever to have quality, safe and secure computing 
again. The state of the industry and competition is deplorable and 
it is due mostly to Microsoft. Your ``settlement'' with 
Microsoft is insufficient. Please do better! I suggest breaking them 
up and requiring source code be made available for a time. Also the 
government should require all the software it uses be based on open 
source platforms by 2005.
    Jeff Adams
    650-654-4148
    [email protected]



MTC-00019289

From: RK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear USDOJ:
    I do not support the proposed final judgment. Microsoft has been 
ruled a monopoly, and significantly more must be done to end the 
illegal monopoly than what the DOJ currently proposes. There are 
many highly qualified experts in the legal and technology 
professions who have strongly criticized specific proposals in the 
DOJ's settlement. I believe that these expert's opinions have not 
been included, and they deserve greater representation.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Rodney Koch
    4617 Texas Trail
    Madison WI 53704
    608-242-0033



MTC-00019290

From: Mike Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust settlement
    Just a quick note weighing in on the proposed remedies to the 
Microsoft AntiTrust case.
    As a previous owner of a software development firm that was 
forced to sell out to Microsoft, I can verify first hand that 
Microsoft; IS a monopoly, HAS a monoply, ABUSES its monopoly. I 
thought that was acknowledged legally, in a Federal Court, none the 
less. Then I read about the ``slap on the wrist'' measures 
that the DOJ has agreed to in their proposed settlement. Surely the 
supression of rival technologies, suffocation of emerging 
technologies via FUD press releases, and heavy handed licensing 
practices warrant far greater remedies than what is proposed in the 
current settlement. The talking heads say that the DOJ ultimately 
went soft because of the potential damage to our economy that truly 
effective penalties would have caused. Well that approach 
marginalizes the massive damage to innovation and entrepreneurial 
pursuits that Microsoft's business practices have already caused 
over the last decade. I urge you to reconsider, withdraw from the 
current proposed settlement, and work to formulate something that 
truly sends a stern message to the officers of this criminal 
corporation. Business as usual at Microsoft should no longer be 
swept under the rug, shrugged off as the activities of a company 
that just got ``a little aggressive, a little over-
competitive.'' Their policies and attitudes, both towards their 
competitors and their customers, more resemble a local thug shaking 
down local 

[[Page 26696]]


businesses for protection money, rather than a 
respectable member of the business community.
    Thank you for your kind attention,
    Michael Myers
    Huntington Beach, CA



MTC-00019291

From: Matthew J. Turk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew J. Turk,
    Computer Professional
    6262 Rapidfall NE
    Belmont, MI 49306
    (616)363-9436
    (847)332-8156 



MTC-00019292

From: Wadell, Jim S (SAIC)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunny Act, I would like to comment on the Proposed 
Settlement in the Microsoft case.
    As far as I can see, the settlement does absolutely nothing to 
stop the behavior which started the case. During the period that the 
case was being heard, Microsoft has, in fact, increased this 
behavior. Furthermore, their reckless release of very poor software 
has lead to increasing security problems for the whole of the 
internet, including non-Microsoft systems. This has increased to the 
point of being a threat to the national security. If the Proposed 
Settlement goes into effect, Microsoft will be free to continue to 
increase their hold on the market, not thought customer desire, but 
by manipulation of technical standards to drive competitors out.
    Sincerely
    James S Wadell



MTC-00019293

From: DMc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I do not have 
time to go through it point by point, but will be co-signing Dan 
Kegel's very well researched comments with which I agree.
    Diane McSweeney
    Webmaster
    San Jose, CA



MTC-00019294

From: Roger Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:38pm
Subject: Concerning the proposed MS vs. DOJ settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I have been following the Microsoft vs. DOJ trial since its 
beginning. As a professional software developer I have followed 
desktop computer technology for many years, I've seen many competing 
and often technologically superior competitors slowly be snuffed out 
of the market because of the unique position Microsoft has by 
controlling the operating system that everyone else must build upon. 
In the early days, there were competing versions of DOS from other 
companies, competing office suite software, and other types of 
software that never saw the light of day for very long in the 
consumer marketplace because of the stranglehold Microsoft has had 
on PC and hardware developers. Microsoft's deal with OEM's have 
always been exclusionary, threatening to pull licensing for Windows 
if the manufacturer decides to offer other operating systems or 
software that directly competes against Microsoft. Because DOS/
Windows has always held the lions share of the market any PC 
manufacturer that refused to go with Microsoft's wishes suddenly 
would find themselves at a big competitive disadvantage. The average 
PC consumer is used to having everything pre-installed because they 
don't want to bother themselves or are afraid to attempt it. 
Microsoft understood this and realized that by controlling the OEM, 
they could effectively control the software people would use. 
Microsoft continues to use these strong-arm tactics today even while 
the litigation is proceeding. PC manufacturers have always had to 
bow to Microsoft's wishes on what to pre-install because if 
Microsoft revokes the manufacturers'' ability to pre-install 
Windows, consumers would go elsewhere. This effectively forces PC 
manufacturers to do Microsoft's bidding.
    A truly open, competitive environment is one where systems are 
open and understood and the foundations to build a great computing 
experience are available on an equal basis to everyone wishing to 
compete. Also, a truly open market would allow equal access to 
software vendors seeking to have their products pre-installed on 
consumer systems. Microsoft has been able to put itself into a 
position where it can determine the reach of its competitors and 
always tilt the balance in its favor by owning the underlying 
operating system that is the foundation for building the software we 
use today.
    The idea of allowing Microsoft to provide computers and its 
software to poor schools is noble, but it only serves to further 
Microsoft's monopoly power and make more people dependent on its 
technology. A modified form of this, such as providing Macintosh's 
would make more sense. In any case, the only real way to fix the 
problem is to force Microsoft to open up its platform (file formats, 
API's, etc) and end its exclusionary licensing practices so that 
other software companies products can compete on an equal footing.
    I hope the final settlement will include a serious resolution to 
the stranglehold Microsoft has on PC manufacturers. This I believe 
is the only true way to allow competing operating system platforms, 
as well as applications software to be presented to a wide audience. 
The manufacturers themselves should be able to license and install 
what they believe to be in their own competitive interests, not 
Microsoft's.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Rasmussen



MTC-00019295

From: Leroyjetson7
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Cave in to your Campaign contributors. Motto for Enron And 
Microsoft :
    Afraid of the government? Hell No! We Are the Government!
    This just Screams: Campaign Funding Reform!!
    If you've got the money honey, I've got the time..........



MTC-00019296

From: Phill Rosen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: The microsoft settlement is inadequate]
    Dear Sir,
    It is my opinion that the current settlement in the Microsoft 
vs. doj antitrust suit is inadequate. It does nothing to redress the 
past grievances committed by Microsoft nor is it structured to 
prevent further abuses by them. All it does is enshrine the status 
quo. Clearly the anti trust laws that are in place are meant to do 
more then this and a strong U.S. economy requires far more. How can 
America stay at the forefront of technology if Microsoft is allowed 
to stifle technical innovation simply by leveraging its overwhelming 
size? While the DOJ might find this settlement to be adequate, it is 
clear that they are not well informed enough (or unbiased enough?) 
to reach a settlement that redress past and prevents future 
grievances. Please consider this a vote AGAINST the settlement and 
on that is in favor of a 


[[Page 26697]]


decision that is AGAINST Microsoft's 
interests.
    Thank You,
    Phillip Rosen
    63 Lockwood Rd.
    Riverside Ct, 06878



MTC-00019297

From: Richard Tietjens
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well, I see the DOJ has decided that campaign contributions from 
Microsoft are far more important than protecting consumers from a 
rapacious monopoly. What a wonderful legacy the Bush administration 
will leave us! Total ownership of all important computer systems by 
a private corporation, which has demonstrated total disregard for 
both the rights of consumers and the law for more than then years.



MTC-00019298

From: Diana Acunto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    to whom it concerns:
    I am writing this e-mail in the hopes that you will represent 
the voices of millions of Americans who cry out for justice in this 
matter. The morale amongst most of my fellow citizens is at an all-
time low for obvious reasons. The corruption in our government and 
its links to shady corporations such as Enron and the Carlyle Group, 
has all but ruined our faith in this country's declining integrity. 
We look to you to restore some of that lost faith. It is plain to 
see that Microsoft has been operating as a vicious monopoly for 
years without so much as a slap on the wrist. Their proposed 
settlement, which was gratefully rejected, was a clear indication of 
the company's disregard for our anti-trust laws. With the audacity 
of a spoiled child, they have successfully wiped out much of their 
competition, leaving only scraps of the market share to be divided 
amongst the more tenacious surviving entities such as Apple, 
Netscape, etc. The biggest fear is that Microsoft's greed is so 
contagious that it will corrupt the minds of those deciding their 
fate in the end. I sincerely hope that this is not the case and that 
you will help to destroy their tight circle of corruption. I am not 
entirely against Microsoft. I use quite a few of their products 
everyday and find them to be invaluable resources. Regardless of 
this fact, they should rely only on the quality of their products 
and the presentation thereof to finance themselves without indulging 
in unethical and downright immoral business practices to suppress 
their competition. It is my understanding that this is not the only 
suit brought against them. As AOL and Netscape file their claims, I 
trust that you will do what is right in the eyes of this great 
nation and not give in to the sway of these greedy monopolizers.
    thank you for listening
    Diana Acunto
    New York City



MTC-00019299

From: Anthony Placilla (by way of Anthony Placilla 
(060)aplacill(a)roc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We, the undersigned feel that the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft is bad. It does nothing to curb their practices and will 
only encourage them to abuse further their monopoly. -
    Tony & Maureen Placilla
    [email protected]



MTC-00019300

From: David Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monster. Please make sure that they don't rule 
the world.
    DH



MTC-00019301

From: Patrick Hedgepath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I run a web site development company that uses a variety of 
products and services. I am appalled at the fact that AOL is suing 
Microsoft and preventing innovation. I can not tell you how many 
countless hours I have spent talking with my clients about the 
problems and issues that AOL delivers. Microsoft on the other hand 
seems to deliver products and services that help me and my company 
out at every turn. I wonder though how well Microsoft will be able 
to continue to do this with companies like AOL/Time Warner suing 
them at every turn only because they produce inferior products to 
that of Microsoft. As a tax payer and an avid voter I demand that 
Microsoft be left alone so they can continue to provide products and 
services that help the small business owner like myself. Thank you 
for listening.
    Thanks,
    Patrick J Hedgepath
    Pegasus Web Productions
    [email protected]
    http://www.pegweb.com 



MTC-00019302

From: Jake Loewen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Being an expert computer user since the mid 1980's I have 
watched Microsoft turn from a beneficial software company who 
thought of the customer first to a monopolistic, ego driven 
corporation seeking to make more money than they actually need. The 
last Microsoft operating system I purchased was Windows 98. Now I 
run Linux and find it to be a blessing being as 95% of the software 
is free and extremely more dependable than anything from Microsoft. 
It is my opinion that Microsoft needs to be split into two companies 
and the two companies CANNOT work with each other directly.
    The most important thing is that the operating system company 
cannot bundle Internet Explorer with the system software-leave 
that up to the commercial software half of Microsoft. In my copies 
of SuSE Linux there are numerous browsers included with an install: 
KDE's Konqueror, Opera, Netscape, Mozilla, and Lynx. This allows me 
to choose which browser I want to use and allows the browser 
companies to have fair and unbiased views of their customers. On the 
other hand Microsoft pretty much runs the browser business for win32 
operating systems and its either IE or crippled installs of 
Netscape. Unfortunately Opera isn't proclaimed much due to 
Microsoft's overwhelming market presence.
    It is in the opinion of this system administrator, technology 
guru, and unbiased operating system user that Microsoft be split in 
half and allow for better market competition.
    Jake Loewen



MTC-00019303

From: JIM WEST
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I hope you will not be influenced by the smoke screen of AOL-
Netscape law suite against Microsoft and will go ahead and settle 
the Microsoft- department of justice law suite . I think 
settling this matter is in the best interest of the people of the 
united states and the world . in my opinion Microsoft is a great 
company to do business with. AOL needs to get their act together and 
figure out a way to serve the public as good as Microsoft does!



MTC-00019304

From: Peter Bombard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am strongly against the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
While I agree that breaking up the company is not the right answer, 
almost none of what is in this settlement appears to actually remedy 
the previous behavior of Microsoft or prevent the future repetition 
of that behavior.
    This settlement appears to do little more than capitulate to 
Microsoft while providing only an appearance of remedy.
    Unlike the Findings of Fact, the settlement defines 
``API'' (Application Programming Interface) in such a way 
that Microsoft would be able to avoid full disclosure on the most 
important APIs they control. The definition in the settlement needs 
to be returned to the language of the Finding of Fact. Unlike the 
Findings of Fact, the settlement defines ``Middleware'' in 
such a way that Microsoft would be able to exclude any software from 
being covered by the definition. The definition in the settlement 
needs to be returned to the language of the Finding of Fact.
    Important software packages from Microsoft that were included in 
the Finding of Fact are excluded by the settlement, such as 
Microsoft Office or the full version of Microsoft Outlook. The 
software packages that were identified in the Finding of Fact as 
contributing to Applications Barrier of Entry need to be included in 
the settlement.
    The settlement defines a ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' to be only 


[[Page 26698]]


Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP 
Professional, Windows XP Home and all of their successors. This 
ignores other versions of Microsoft windows that can be leveraged 
through their monopoly, as non-Intel hardware is leveraged in the 
marketspace currently occupied by Windows XP Home.
    The settlement does not require any advanced notice of technical 
requirements, but requires vendors of competing middleware to meet 
``reasonable technical requirements'' seven months before 
new releases of Windows. Microsoft could then change their 
requirements shortly before release and not notify said vendors. The 
settlement needs to require Microsoft to provide vendors with 
advanced notice of technical requirements, specifically in time for 
them to achieve the seven month deadline.
    The settlement mandates that API documentation for release far 
too late in the process to be of help to vendors of competing 
products and certainly not in time for them to meet the seven months 
prior to release deadline. Vendors need access to this information 
much sooner. The settlement needs to require Microsoft to provide 
vendors with advanced access to API documentation, specifically in 
time for them to achieve the seven month deadline.
    Important APIs and file formats would not be covered by this 
settlement and would render the utility of such requirements in 
question without their inclusion. Undocumented file formats are 
included in the Applications Barrier to Entry in the Findings of 
Fact and are an important component in Microsoft's ability to 
maintain their monopoly. The settlement needs to be brought in-line 
with the findings of fact.
    The settlement places unnecessary restrictions on the access of 
released information by competing vendors and would serve to reduce 
the resources of any vendor that developed for operating systems 
other than Microsoft's. The settlement MUST not be used to create 
further barriers to entry; these restrictions must be eased.
    The settlement does nothing to address Microsoft's 
discrimination against vendors who support non-Microsoft operating 
systems and in fact allows Microsoft to specifically act against 
vendors who ship systems with ONLY non-Microsoft operating systems. 
I believe this is wrong and not in the public's interest. I believe 
that language specifically protecting the ability of vendors to ship 
only systems without any Microsoft operating system installed should 
be included.
    The settlement allows Microsoft to discriminate against vendors 
who ship Open Source Applications. I believe this is wrong and not 
in the public's interest. I believe that language specifically 
protecting the ability of vendors to develop for both Microsoft and 
Open Source applications should be included.
    The settlement allows Microsoft to discriminate against vendors 
who target Windows-Compatible operating systems. Additionally, the 
settlement allows Microsoft license to restrict end users from using 
Windows-Compatible operating systems. I believe this is wrong and 
not in the public's interest. I believe that language protecting the 
ability of both vendors and end users to work with Windows-
Compatible operating systems should be included.
    These highlight my major disagreements with the settlement and I 
hope will suffice to express my concern with the proposal. There is 
little or nothing that I can find in the document that actually 
appears to serve to truly remedy the behavior that was identified by 
the Finding of Fact and upheld by the Court of Appeals. I believe 
this settlement is bad and does not serve to further the Public 
interest.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Peter W. Bombard



MTC-00019305

From: Higgs Glenda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:43pm
Subject: microsoft settlement THIS SUIT SHOULD BE SETTLED NOW....AOL 
KNEW WHEN IT PURCHASED NETSCAPE WHAT A MESS THIS WAS. HOW MUCH MORE 
DO YOU THINK STOCKHOLDERS OF MICROSOFT IS WILLING TO TAKE PLEASE 
SETTLE........................NOW



MTC-00019306

From: Scifihead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a joke!!!!!



MTC-00019307

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hearing the news about AOL via Netscape suing Microsoft has 
called my attention to the harassment against Microsoft we have seen 
the last few years.
    It is my understanding that the antitrust case against Microsoft 
is currently in the review phase and that comments about whether the 
settlement is in the public interest are being sought.
    Please DO NOT ALLOW this latest ``terrorist'' tactic 
to influence your decision to quietly settle the case against 
Microsoft leaving it intact to continue to provide excellent 
products for us consumers.
    There was a time when I also tended to be a Microsoft Basher, 
and of course installed and used the Netscape Browser. Then as part 
of my job I was exposed to Microsoft IE and to my amazement and 
excitement found it to be a much better product. Needless to say, I 
rushed home that night and installed Microsoft IE on my personal 
computer.
    No gun to my head. The best product always wins !!!!!! That is 
what free enterprise is all about.



MTC-00019308

From: John Turnley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Other people have 
done a good job of describing why it's bad. Simply add my voice to 
the people looking for a stronger remedy. We need a remedy that will 
prevent Microsoft from leveraging their operating system monopoly to 
stifle competition.
    I am a Computer Professional who has worked with several 
operating systems over the last 20 years.
    John Turnley
    11 Monteith Ct
    Durham, NC 27713



MTC-00019309

From: Zach Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea. I have several issues with 
the Microsoft settlement, as outlined below:
    (1) The Microsoft Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual 
C++, is the primary toolkit used by businesses to create Windows-
compatible applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: 
``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute ... the 
Redistributable Components... provided that (a) you distribute the 
Redistributable Components only in conjunction with and as a part of 
your Application solely for use with a Microsoft Operating System 
Product...''
    This makes it illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++ 
on Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
    By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, the Proposed Final 
Judgment is contributing to the ``Applications Barrier to 
Entry'' faced by competing operating systems. That is, through 
illegal practices Microsoft is stifiling other operating systems 
such as Linux and FreeBSD by limiting their software libraries. 
Linux and FreeBSD use middle-ware called WINE to run software 
created for Windows. If Windows software is bound by the above 
license it then becomes illegal to use this software with WINE.
    (2) The Proposed Final Judgment supposedly applies to 
``Windows'', but it defines that term so narrowly that it 
doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, 
or the X-Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and 
are advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
    (3) Microsoft Corporation makes both the operating system 
Windows and software which runs in Windows such as applications and 
video games. Because this corporation created the operating system, 
it gives them a significant advantage in designing software for that 
operating system, not to mention the fact they can integrate their 
software into the operating system installation. This is 
unacceptable.
    I myself design software for Windows, often applications or 
games which directly compete with software written by Microsoft. If 
they wished to put their competition (that's me) out of business 
they would simply need to ship the Windows operating system with 
their version of the software pre-installed. Allow me to give you a 
specific example. Microsoft recently started marketing their MSN 
Messenger software. MSN Messenger is an Instant Messenging program 
that allows users to chat on the internet. I have recently 


[[Page 26699]]


created an Instant Messenging program of my own which offers new 
and unique features not available with MSN Messenger. Unfortunately 
for me, computers running Microsoft Windows often come with MSN or 
MSN Messenger pre-installed onto the Windows desktop. If they aren't 
pre-installed then their corresponding webpages are often linked to. 
Microsoft exploits the fact that they created the operating system 
and gives their software an unfair advantage. Microsoft should not 
be allowed to place any software, or links to software, on the 
Windows desktop. The items that appear on the desktop should be free 
for computer manufacturers to decide, such as Gateway, Dell, and 
Compaq. Even better would be to break Microsoft Corporation into two 
entities, one for Operating Systems and one for Software. Beyond 
this I also agree with Dan Kegel whose views can be seen here: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
    Thank you,
    Zach Johnson Minneapolis, MN
    USA



MTC-00019310

From: (123)USER(u)FIRSTNAME(125) (123)USER(u)LASTNAME(125)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my belief that the DOJ settlement is fair for all 
concerned and further litigation is not necessary.
    Ronald Matthews



MTC-00019311

From: David Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:39pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions with the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefitted from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    I also cannot resist to comment that one form of solution I 
haven't seen in the public commentary has been to enforce that 
Microsoft, or every software maker possibly, to openly and freely 
publish the interfaces for interoperating with their software. To be 
precise, this would mean publishing APIs and File Formats (namely 
Microsoft Office file type formats and Win32 API). This remedy is 
extremely easy to produce technically and removes the possibility of 
illegal ``binding''. Anyone with enough technical 
experience can build a competing product and Microsoft (or any 
business) does not have to give away the source code to their 
products.
    Sincerely,
    David Smith
    Systems and Network Administrator
    West Virginia University, College of Human Resources and 
Education
    Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 (304) 293-7639 ext. 1817



MTC-00019312

From: Randy Hamilton
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'd like to take this opportunity to express my dissatisfaction 
with the currently proposed Microsoft settlement. I feel it falls 
profoundly short of denying Microsoft the fruits of activities which 
were determined to be illegal, and does even less to prevent it from 
engaging in the same basic activities in the future. As for denying 
them the fruits of illegal activities, it would be a very ardous 
task to determine the full extent to which portion of their 
dominance in dozens of areas resulted from only illegal activities 
used to protect the Windows monopoly, much less what the ill-gotten 
gains are worth and how to deny them to Microsoft. As far as 
preventing illegal conduct in the future-I fully believe the 
only way to achieve that is no longer allow them to bundle 
*anything* in their operating system software beyond that which 
would be required for any other piece of software to communicate 
with the computer's hardware. That means no Internet Explorer, no 
MSN, no IM, no Office, no solitaire, no *anything* can be sold in 
the same package, license, or sale of the Windows operating system. 
If they want to sell all those other products, even ones which 
``integrate'' themselves with the OS during 
installation-they must be sold, promoted, serviced, and priced 
seperately. And that the API calls which the OS makes available for 
software to interact with it must be published publically, in such a 
manner that even Microsoft's own enginners and designers cannot 
retrieve ANY information concerning the current or future API calls 
from any other source than the one publically available to all other 
companies writing software designed to run on the Windows platform. 
And that any violation of that chain of information whatsoever be 
treated with the same severity as the illegal use of insider 
information.
    I don't know if Microsoft can ever be denied the fruits of their 
illegal activies (short of forcing them to trade all their stock and 
cash reserves for all of Netscapes stock and cash 
reserves)-but it is vital to the present and future of 
technology that the no longer have the ability to sabatoge the 
efforts of every other company by exploiting secret information of 
the current Windows API, and secret information about the future 
Windows API which will disable or destabilize current software. I 
can't begin to describe to you how incredibly frustrating it has 
been to deal with Microsoft's API sabatoges of existing software 
over the last 10 years; not can I begin to imagine the amount of 
innovation and productivity which has been sacrificed by the 
companies forced to deal with acts instead.
    If you can't make Microsoft give back what it has stolen from 
the technology industry with it's illegal conduct, please at least 
find a settlement which forces Microsoft to compete on the *legal* 
marketing and technical merits of the products. We'll all be the 
better for it (even Microsoft itself).
    Sincerely,
    Randy Hamilton
    CTO
    Berkery, Noyes & Co.
    50 Broad Street
    New York, NY 10004
    (212) 668-3022 x. 243
    Email:Randy.Hamilton@ BerkeryNoyes.com



MTC-00019313

From: Mark Boles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an experienced application developer, I do not feel the 
current proposed final judgement in United States vs. Microsoft 
adequately meets the criteria required by law. In addition, I do not 
believe the proposed settlement will have enough of an impact on the 
market to allow the level of competition to promote proper growth.
    I believe lack of competition is the most significant threat. It 
has been proven repeatedly that lack of competition prohibits 
growth. The breakup of the Big Bell is the classic example of this 
taught in institutions of higher education. I believe there are 
practices by Microsoft that should be looked at beyond their 
monopolistic packaging. For instance their outrageous new licensing 
agreements. They are also capitalizing on market by not providing 
proper information to the hardware extraction layer. They own the 
only product on the market with complete hardware extraction (SMS) 
and it (like many of their other products) does not function 
properly.
    Thank you for your time,
    -MEB
    Mark E Boles
    The B. A. Group, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00019314

From: Nathan Ricci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final settlement simply does not do enough to 
remedy the monopolistic practices of Microsoft. While some of the 
remedies are potentially helpful, they contain loop-holes which I 
doubt will go unused.


[[Page 26700]]


    In particular, this settlement does nothing to stop Microsoft 
from engaging in anti-cometative practices against software vendors 
who create alternative implementations of Microsoft API's. Although 
the settlement does require MS to release documentation on their 
API's for ``Microsoft Middleware'' (which, by the way, is 
rather narrowly defined), this documentation can only be used to 
interoperate with Microsoft Operating System products, not to create 
an alternative to an MS OS. If the settlement forced Microsoft to 
allow these documents to be used for alternative-implementations of 
these API's, it would greatly help in restoring competition to 
normal level.
    -Nathan Ricci



MTC-00019315

From: Greg Wittmeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a software developer, I have a special understanding of 
Microsoft's criminal activities.
    API DOCUMENTATION
    I work very closely with Microsoft's API's, and it is very clear 
that Microsoft wants to make it as difficult as possible for anyone 
else to write software. Even a non-programmer can see that the 
documentation for the Windows API's is very spartan. A programmer 
working with the documentation will quickly discover just how bad 
the documentation is. There are typos, inaccuracies, omissions, and 
broken hyperlinks. I can provide an extensive list of examples if 
you like. Microsoft is clearly doing this on purpose to stifle 
competition-their own programmers would never be able to use 
such shoddy documentation.
    PREDATORY PRACTICES
-Microsoft gives away Internet Explorer to hurt Netscape.
-Microsoft has used every dirty trick in the book to hurt 
Java, and they have been largely successful. Java is a threat to 
Microsoft's monopoly on operating systems.
-Microsoft introduced code into Outlook Express in order to 
hurt Blue Mountain Arts, who rejected Microsoft's attempts to buy 
them.
-Service Pack 3 for Windows NT 4 changed the operating 
system's communications protocols, making it incompatible with 
Samba. Simultaneously, they removed all technical articles relating 
to Samba from their website. Their is no conceivable justification 
for this.
-Microsoft uses the Business Software Alliance to blackmail 
companies into signing exclusive contracts with Microsoft.
    The list goes on and on. It is obvious that Microsoft uses its 
monopoly position to hurt competition.
    SOLUTIONS
    Microsoft should be forced to release the source code, and their 
internal documention, to all of its operating systems. This would 
give other software developers at least a fighting chance at 
competing with the behemoth.
    Bill Gates should be forced to give up all ownership and 
participation in Microsoft. Microsoft's behavior is a direct 
reflection of Bill Gates'' personality. Because they are guilty 
of so many criminal activities, all Microsoft management should 
receive the same penalty. Microsoft's behavior and reputation has 
damaged the entire software industry. Microsoft's direct actions 
have clearly been illegal. But their infamous reputation has been 
very damaging as well. Disgruntled users pirate software because of 
their hatred for Microsoft, and unfortunately this dissatisfaction 
extends to other software developers. Because of Microsoft, people 
see software companies as rich and greedy, and this justifies their 
piracy. As a result, piracy is rampant. As a remedy, Microsoft 
should be forced to pay a large fine, which should be used to pay 
off the income taxes of software developers.
    The DOJ has a horrible record on breaking up monopolies. 
Breaking up Standard Oil made Rockefeller vastly more wealthy. 
Breaking up Southwestern Bell simply turned one big monopoly into 
smaller, local monopolies. Monopolies can only be stopped by 
competition on a level playing field. Please do not repeat your past 
mistakes by giving Microsoft a slap on the wrist. It currently 
appears that the DOJ is going to completely cave in to Microsoft. 
That would be a great disservice to the human race, and a shame from 
which you would never escape.
    In the absence of communism, evil greedy corporations are the 
biggest threat to our society. Microsoft is the greediest, most evil 
company the world has ever seen. There is no penalty that will make 
up for Microsoft's atrocities, so it is imperative that you punish 
them to the maximum extent possible.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Wittmeyer
    CEO, Gammadyne Software
    http://www.gammadyne.com
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00019316

From: Avery Wilkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As written, the Microsoft antitrust settlement proposed by the 
Department of Justice is utterly toothless and will be ineffective 
in preventing further monopoly abuses by the software giant. If this 
settlement is accepted, as a taxpayer I will be shocked that the 
expense of this trial will have resulted in nothing but more abuses 
and wasted money.
    Please consider that any ineffectual solution to Microsoft's 
multiple, ongoing, and remorseless monopoly abuses will be no better 
than simply dropping the case.
    All parties to this legal action assert that it is important to 
conclude this matter as soon as possible, but any solution that 
doesn't go to the root of the problem will merely result in another 
repeat of legal action in the future. In short, we'll be back where 
we started, only with more abuses and more companies 
(including-but not limited to!-Microsoft) injured or 
destroyed in the process.
    How this outcome would be beneficial to the technology industry, 
consumers, the economy as a whole, or even Microsoft itself is not 
clear; in the long run, Microsoft's abuse of their monoculture will 
even be detrimental to themselves.
    The current agreement makes no bold moves to block Microsoft's 
unrelenting desire to weasel themselves through legal loopholes 
towards further abuses Rather, it expressly allows them to continue 
using the tools they have long employed to extend their monopoly. By 
way of analogy, this agreement will be as laughably ineffectual as 
an umbrella built out of chicken wire: it doesn't do a thing to keep 
the hapless user from getting soaked.
    If this is the best possible solution to Microsoft's proven 
monopoly abuses, then the entire trial, and the hearings and consent 
decrees before it, were an enormous waste of public dollars, and are 
furthermore a waste that is destined to be repeated.
    As a United States taxpayer, and someone subject to the 
Microsoft monopoly, I'm outraged that this is what it has all come 
down to.
    Don't settle without a worthwhile agreement.
    Avery Wilkins



MTC-00019317

From: John Small
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/23/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a computer professional. In no way do I understand the 
intricacies of the law. Nonetheless I feel obliged to comment on the 
pending settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    As a computer professional it is very clear to me that 1) 
Microsoft is a monopoly and 2) that Microsoft has abused its 
position to its advantage and that both the consuming public and 
Microsoft's competitors have suffered grievously as a result.
    The proposed settlement does nearly nothing to prevent future 
abuse much less reverse the abuses of the past. In the interests of 
a free market and free competition please discard the proposed 
aggreement and develop a new agreement which takes significant real 
action to punish Microsoft and discourage further similar action on 
Miscrosoft's part. Renewed competition (and genuine innnovation) is 
needed but will not happen under the proposed settlement.
    Thank you.
    John Small



MTC-00019319

From: Darren Twa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can't believe that the government could consider justice done 
in the Microsoft case. Nothing of substance was done to punish or 
change their behavior.
    Maybe the settlement would have been just if the Department of 
Justice had any clue about the computer industry. They show the same 
skill as the Patent Office has been demonstrating by giving out 
ridiculous patents.



MTC-00019320

From: Harrison Rigby
To: Microsoft ATR


[[Page 26701]]


Date: 1/23/02 7:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement reached between the DOJ and Microsoft is, in the 
opinion of this citizen, an inadequate conclusion to the biggest 
anti-trust case of all time. Microsoft said that it disagreed with 
the verdict reached by Judge Jackson. This much, we expected. 
Microsoft then said that it disagreed with the Judge Jackson's 
interpretations of the applicable laws, and even with the existence 
of some of the laws themselves. The Federal Appeals Court, while 
rebuking some of Judge Jackson's behaviors, agreed with most of his 
findings and confirmed the validity of the laws involved.
    The DOJ's decision to not pursue Judge Jackson's harsh penalties 
against Microsoft gives the company a free pass to continue its 
obviously illegal practices and predatory behavior and sets a 
precedent under which Microsoft and other monopolies may hide in the 
future. Here's my suggestion regarding how to make the settlement 
more fair: Require that Microsoft open up all the API (application 
programming library) interfaces to, and within, the various versions 
of the Windows operating system. It's widely known that there are 
special calls within these libraries that are known only the 
Microsoft and that give Microsoft's product developers special 
advantages (Microsoft denies this claim). Given that DOJ's decision 
affirms Microsoft's monopoly position and will make the Microsoft 
Windows operating system a defacto standard for many years, we who 
must work in this software environment, and who must compete against 
Microsoft, wish to work on an even-playing field. It's not fair for 
those who control the common environment to control the rules, as 
well as the score, as fully as they do.
    Please, open up the APIs so that our general economy, my small 
company's customers, and its stockholders may benefit from the 
improved produts that will result when all developers are allowed 
access to the many currently hidden features within these libraries.
    Thank you very much,
    Harrison Rigby
    CTO Discovery Software, LLC
    503 Kensington Road
    Taylors, SC 29687
    [email protected]



MTC-00019321

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-
trust case. The currently proposed settlement does not adequately 
address the problems created by the past actions of Microsoft. 
Additionally, the proposed remedy of extending the judgement for a 
period of two years for non-compliance is wholly inadequate. I would 
support a settlement that included a requirement that Microsoft make 
public all APIs and file formats for a period of five years and 
provided for a significant penalty for failure to do so.
    Thank You,
    John Turner
    2240 Tarpley Rd. #294
    Carrollton TX 75006



MTC-00019323

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Proper? Fair? Equitable?
    I think not...
    Should we fine monopolists by helping them extend their 
monopoly?
    I think not...
    Paying via software donation to educational institutions just 
entrenches them deeper into the system. I sure hope when I get 
caught with my hands in the cookie jar, I will be able to send out a 
few million in software. It will be easy considering the way 
software is distributed these days. I'd rather send out 3 billion in 
licenses than pay a $1000 fine in cash. :-)
    This is a very short-sighted and unknowledgable decision. I hope 
it is reworked or there will have been no reason to go through the 
whole charade...
    Wayne Swanson



MTC-00019325

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
    Gentlemen:
    The proposed settlement is bad idea. A proper settlement must: 
provide redress to the companies whose software innovation has been 
denied access to markets by the continuing illegal monopolistic 
practices of the Microsoft corporation provide restructuring of 
Microsoft corporation and restraints on the resulting companies to 
effectively deny their cooperation to achieve the same result, and 
provide ALL companies equal and open access to all their products 
interfaces and formats provide severe punitive economic sanctions to 
dissuade such egregious corporate injury to free market enterprise 
in the United States of America ever again.
    Respectfully,
    Teresa L. Beumeler
    Raleigh, North Carolina



MTC-00019326

From: George Czerw
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/23/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a 30 year veteran in the networking side of the computer 
industry, I have watched as the Microsoft Corporation has been 
allowed either buy out or bury (beginning with the Digital Research 
Corporation and continuing through IBM's attempt to collaborate on 
OS/2, the Novell Corporation's marketing of NetWare and Netscape's 
marketing of its own Netscape Web browser) hundreds, if not 
thousands of what used to be innovative, independant software 
companies. Outside of stealing or buying the technologies developed 
by others, the Microsoft Corporation has done little in the way of 
true, original innovation, and in my opinion, Microsoft's financial 
success has been dependant upon allowing its arrogant, deep-
pocketed, overbearing Marketing Department to blitzkrieg its 
competitors, threaten computer hardware vendors into offering 
nothing but Microsoft's own operating system, and otherwise 
bamboozle both the government and the general public into believing 
that Microsoft's bloated, ill-conceived, poorly designed, poorly 
performing and security-vulnerable software is the best software 
offering in the world.
    I find it appalling, laughable, and sickening (yes, all three at 
once) that both the Bush Administration and the DOJ would take a 
position which suggests that a ``just penalty'' would be 
to allow the Microsoft Corporation to convert millions or billions 
of its dollars for the purpose of providing computer hardware and 
its own computer software to the US primary and secondary 
educational systems. You people must be daft, for those educational 
systems are among the few markets which have always been dominated 
by the Apple Computer Corporation, and in which the Microsoft 
Corporation has never been able to gain a significant foothold, 
despite its best efforts. It is past time that the Federal 
Government and the White House stopped shamelessly pandering to 
those special interests, corporations and individuals who are large 
campaign contributors and begin listening to and protecting the 
interests not only of the general public but also of the 
corporations and businesses who have not agreed with or contributed 
to the coffers of the party in power. The only thing that the 
Microsoft Corporation understands is brute force, and it deserves no 
less a penalty than that which was given to Standard Oil and 
AT&T.
    For the good of this country and its citizens, break Microsoft 
up into small pieces and do it now! Only then will the nation see 
some true innovation and competition in this nation's software 
industry.
    George Czerw
    Rancocas, NJ



MTC-00019327

From: Russell Sears
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The currently proposed microsoft settlement does not do enough 
punish microsoft for past infringements, nor does it do enough to 
ensure that they will not continue similar behavior in the future.
    Russell Sears.



MTC-00019328

From: Baskette, John
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Please do not go forward with this settlement. From everything I 
have read, it does not appear to me that the remedy's will prove to 
be effective in stemming illegal anti-competitive behavior by the 
Microsoft Corporation.
    I am a computer programmer, been so for 20 years.


[[Page 26702]]


    Thank you.
    John F. Baskette
    RIS Field Systems Team, Irvine Campus
    Phone:949.863.4385
    [email protected]



MTC-00019329

From: Andrew Carpenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:48pm
Subject: Comments on the proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to register my opposition to the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed 
settlement does little to redress the past actions committed by 
Microsoft, nor does it adequately seek to prevent them from 
committing similar actions in the future. Mush of the settlement 
does not even appear to correct the situation; in some places it 
actually codifies Microsoft's ability to continue its current 
practices. Little in the settlement will effectively prohibit 
Microsoft from abusing its monopoly position in the operating system 
market. Microsoft must receive an adequate penalty for the charges 
it faces. The simple fact that it is publicly declaring its 
happiness with the current proposal and resisting any attempts to 
change it should be warning enough that it will ultimately be 
ineffective.
    I urge the court to seek another remedy. If a settlement cannot 
be found that meets requirements, please do not allow a settlement 
to take place, and instead proceed with appropriate legal penalties.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Carpenter



MTC-00019330

From: Jason Guidry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any settlement that does not include the division of Microsoft 
into 3 or more _equal_ parts is completely 
unacceptable. It will continue to use its stranglehold on the 
Operating System Market to force its own products and agenda, 
including proprietary standards & software.
    Thank you.



MTC-00019331

From: Jonathan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi:
    I would appeal to the Department of Justice to also consider 
whether Microsoft did indeed torpedo IBM's OS/2 operating sytem. It 
should be determined if this is true:
    Excerpt from a web article:
    ``It hasn't been that many years since Microsoft first felt 
brave enough to stab its benefactor/partner in the back, as 
Microsoft did during the OS/2 saga. And fewer still since Redmond 
demanded that IBM drop the competing operating system from its 
product line by refusing to grant IBM a preload license for Windows 
95 until 15 minutes prior to its launch, and raising the price for 
the license by 700 percent when they did grant it.'' http://
www.idg.net/ic_790548_1794_9-10000.html
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Drews



MTC-00019332

From: Max Muller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software engineer creating software for the Microsoft 
operating system, I believe the current settlement is a very bad 
idea. As it currently stand Microsoft will not be hampered in any 
real way.
    Regards,
    Max



MTC-00019333

From: suncitian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:47pm
Subject: AOL?????
    Why don't you leave Micosoft alone. There is so much more to 
do;than pick on USA business.
    Ron Casebere



MTC-00019334

From: Jim Myers (IT Manager) CSU llc 800.488.0960
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:47pm
Subject: MICROSOFT clearly has misled AMERICA
    Not just Big Corporations but simple everyday little people. 
People who had jobs working at Microsoft's competitor businesses. 
Everyone is Lied to and Misled and then forced to accept whatever 
Microsoft's dictates. For over 10 Years they(Msft) has not let 
anyone interfere with a hard disk boot loader program. The program 
easily could have enabled other Systems and functionality as far 
back as 1993/94. They Never once let the Builders of P.C's choose 
whatever OS they wanted to sell to everyday people.
    Now look, Microsoft almost certainly must run on everyone's PC 
in order to have a operating system work right. Work right with 
what? Office and utility programs Microsoft Hogged Down when they 
put them out of business.
    Who out of business? Word Perfect, Borland, Officewriter(Back in 
1993/94) when MS-Office trumped all businesses and coerced PC 
builders to bundle the applications for FREE, And letting the 
builders Saver every Dollar they made off of each American that 
bought their P.C. Operating Systems: Microsoft has put Be 
Incorporated(BEOS) out of work. Va Linux (LNUX) is practically dead 
too.
    Nobody on the planet will ever be able to build something better 
than Microsoft. For if they do, they either get Bought out by Msft, 
OR, Microsoft partners as friends with them, Steals their ideas, 
reverse engineers the code and ShaaaZaaam, Guess what happens next. 
They Build a Quote ``BETTER APPLICATION mousetrap'' and by 
the way HIDE their API or application program interfaces software 
engineers NEED in order to interface with Running code anything New 
some else Wants to invent for the P.C.
    This Please Mr. Government, Is outrageous Monopolistic business 
practices, No matter what Microsoft says, THEY ARE WRONG. Microsoft 
is Wrong for Destroying Ingenuity, Courageousness, Bravery, and 
Sheer AMERICAN WAY mentality. They are so wrong that Most people now 
Hate the company and are only buying their Wares because THEY(Msft) 
IS the Only game in town left now. All others are out of business, 
or So about to be Broken that they can't hardly make it Quarter to 
Quarter.
    No, It is not the economy, It is Microsoft that has Caused this 
economy to Die. That is not to mention, Browser programs even. Just 
Simply Boot Loader locked down Code and Operating Systems.
    Please do something Now. Else Foreign governments will, And it 
won't Be pretty, I can say that much. This country will stand to 
lose far more than little programs and code running in WINDOWS OS's. 
We America, will lose trust, friendships, economies of scale, 
products etc to France, Germany and Asia. They go around everything 
Microsoft Sells and then what happens? Revenue Loss, to the Max, Tax 
bases destroyed and MILLIONS of people out of WORK. HERE in the USA 
including Millions of 50 and over baby boomer types. THIS WILL BE 
YOUR PROBLEM NEXT my friends.
    Believe IT !
    Thank You.



MTC-00019335

From: YON-Jan C. Hardenbergh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:50pm
Subject: The settlement is impractical.
    The settlement seems to involve a LOT of red tape. There is no 
way to enforce this settlement. Only some clear and simple will have 
the desired effect of levelling the playing field. Microsoft will 
continue work behind closed doors unless we open them. The only 
reasonable way I can see to do that is to require that the source 
code to the browser itself be put in the public domain. Microsoft 
will still be able to innovate above and below the browser, but, 
anybody will be able to use the same set of tools that the browser 
is using.
    Isn't that the point?



MTC-00019336

From: Dennis Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:49pm
Subject: Proposed agreement sucks
    I'd like to take this opportunity to voice a hearty ``no 
thanks'' to the Microsoft settlement. Wrist-slapping isn't 
going to help the public any.



MTC-00019337

From: Christopher Armstrong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed Microsoft Settlement. It is a huge 
mistake.
    Thank you.
    Chris Armstrong
    << [email protected] >>
    http://twistedmatrix.com/users/carmstro.twistd/



MTC-00019338

From: Anthony Boyd


[[Page 26703]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a former employee of Borland, a company which at one point 
sued Microsoft because they had hired away over 35 programmers with 
obscene offers (million dollar signing bonuses, other incentives 
that made it impossible for Borland to keep up), I believe that 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law and 
spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do NOT think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    -Anthony Boyd
    627 West Homestead Road
    Sunnyvale, CA
    94087
    408-736-7890



MTC-00019339

From: Colin Wier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a college student, I have a real problem with the deal that 
was crafted by the DOJ in regards to Microsoft. In the case of my 
generation, we have a growing number of concerns with computers in 
general. First and foremost, there is the recent labeling of any 
sort of computer infractions as a terrorist act. But that is another 
topic altogether.
    In regards to Microsoft, this company in my mind, has completely 
overstepped its bounds. After being proven a monopoly they are 
escaping with what seems to be a complete slap on the wrist. When 
AT&T was considered a monopoly it was split up into tiny units, 
each independent of the other. Same with Standard Oil.
    For years I have been a user of Microsoft Windows OS's. Every 
time I find more problems. However, due to their market position, I 
am unable to use tools that I need because of the way that Microsoft 
has created their software. If I am trying to install a program that 
I had used before on my Win98 machine, then install the same on 
Win2000, in my experience it fails about 80% of the time. This 
forces me to replace my perfectly good program with a brand new 
expensive one. This tool that I use to program C++ is also made by 
Microsoft. I eventually threw both of these away. Now I am running a 
Linux computer because of the problems that I have been having.
    That is just one example, but I am sure that you know of many 
more. My only concern in the capacity that I am a student engineer 
(and very poor) is that I can not afford to pay the inflated prices 
for software that breaks down on a daily basis, has introduced a 
number of security issues to my computer, and also fails to work 
with previous versions. I have trouble affording bills, and I have 
precious little patience and faith with companies whose bottom line 
are more money than I can imagine.
    I ramble on, but please, please, please incorporate stiffer 
punishment than the current proposed system.
    Also, allow code to be looked at on a individual basis. Open 
source will, no matter what any Redmond sponsored scientist says, 
allow a person to fix their own on a more expedient basis and tie up 
security holes faster than the patches given out two months or more 
after they are found.
    Sincerely:
    A concerned US citizen



MTC-00019340

From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Department of Justice:
    Microsoft has contributed billions and billions of tax revenues 
to the United States Treasury, much of it earned in foreign 
countries. Further, its contirbution to the economy of this country 
is without precedent.
    Millions of American rely upon its software for their daily 
work, and play. Microsoft, although it has been declared a monopoly 
by the courts, has not abused its monopoly. Who could calculate any 
damages that it might owe (to whom?) as to what its software should 
have cost if it were not a monopoly?
    The only true competition is Linux software, that will not run 
the various applications that Windows will run. I work for a federal 
agency, and its work and efficiency without Microsoft software. In 
short, it would grind to a halt without their current software, and 
further development of same. Polls show that the majority of 
American people support Microsoft in this litigation.
    Please do not abuse your job to see that justice is done for the 
benefit of all Americans, not just to competitors who wish to have 
the same sales and earnings that Microsoft has--to be another 
Microsoft.
    Mike Stoddard



MTC-00019342

From: charles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom read this,
    I am a 18 years old consumer who purchases and enjoy Microsoft 
products. I wish to make a statement about the antitrust cases 
against Microsoft by Department of Justice.
    My statement: I buy Microsoft products according to my own 
choices. I buy Microsoft products because the softwares provide me 
what I want: a word program, an excel file, an email bookkeeping 
system, an easy to use operation system, and consumer service. Those 
are why I buy Microsoft products. Microsoft did not force me to buy 
their products. I choose to buy freely. Microsoft softwares allow me 
to complete my tasks without a difficult. I don't see how Microsoft 
been cheating me because I am receiving benefits from Microsoft 
products and no negatives. I find it unhappy that the Department of 
Justice is attacking Microsoft for provide good products.
    What did Microsoft do? Being monopolist? I wish to remind you 
that monopoly means: 1. Exclusive control by one group of the means 
of producing or selling a commodity or service, 2. Law. A right 
granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified 
commercial activity to a single party. Those definitions are from 
www.dictionary.com  . Now I want 
to make you see that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
    Is Microsoft a monopolist? No. Why? There are other competitors 
in the software market. There is Sun Microsystems, Apple, Corel, IBM 
OS/2, Oracle, and hundred of Linux software distributors. Is 
Microsoft alone? No. The market is an oligarchic, a normal form of 
market that exists all over the world.
    Is Microsoft a monopolist? No? Why? There is no law that says 
``Microsoft is the only producer of software for the computer 
and no company or a person shall compete with Microsoft.'' 
Therefore Microsoft does not possess any illegal monopoly.
    I don't feel being robbed by Microsoft. Microsoft and I made a 
mutual agreement. I want softwares. Microsoft gives me softwares. I 
buy softwares. Microsoft gets money from me. I got 2 and Microsoft 
got 2. So we are even. I wish to remind you that the complaints 
against Microsoft did not began with the consumers or partners of 
Microsoft but the Microsoft's competitors. When the competitors saw 
Microsoft is being successful due to their excellent products, what 
they do? They go to the government and ask them to punish the 
winner. That is cheating. The competitors don't want to compete with 
Microsoft because they want to do it in easy way by ask the 
government to intervene and pull Microsoft down. The government is 
doing the competitors'' dirty works. That is not a free market 
but an element of socialism: government does works for businesses. 
Where is free competition? The freedom to compete against each other 
without government's helps? Government's job is to protect property 
rights and individual freedoms. I don't see anything in the US 
Constitution says, ``Congress shall make law punishing the 
businesses for being successful'' or ``Congress may help 
business crushing their competitors'' or lastly, 
``Congress shall regulate businesses.''
    I am proud to be the citizen of the freest country in the world 
and proud to hold the greatest degree of individual freedoms. But I 
do have the freedom to buy any software product from any provider I 
want to. I do not ask anyone to make that choice for me. I 
specifically did not ask the government to make that choice for me. 
It is mine to make. What products I want is mine to decide not the 
government. The government's job is to protect my right to buy any 
software from any provider not to trample my right to buy a product. 
United States of America is freest country where excellence, 
success, hard 


[[Page 26704]]


working, and intelligence is rewarded not punished 
like our relatives in another side of Atlantic Ocean. But right now, 
William Bill Gates III is being punished for making wonderful 
products for people like me to buy and enjoy. What crime did Bill 
Gates did? The crime is being successful? The crime is being clever? 
The crime is to win the competition? The crime is selling a product? 
What crime? Antitrust laws do not promote competition but to punish 
winners. I want my right to buy any software from any provider to be 
respected and I mean it. So, I ask you to respect my right to buy 
and Microsoft's right to sell. It is a free country not 
totalitarianism or am I missing a totalitarian revolution that took 
over America government?
    Thank you and I expect Microsoft to be pardoned and the 
government to apology for violating my right to buy and Microsoft's 
right to sell.
    Charles R. Sterling,
    a citizen of the United States of America
    CC:mailto:activism @moraldefense.com @i
netgw,mailto:let...



MTC-00019343

From: Brian Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement in the Microsoft case.
    http://www.bigfoot.com/brihall
    Linux Consultant



MTC-00019344

From: Joshua Rochester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Joshua Rochester



MTC-00019345

From: VanL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I understand from various news sources that your office is 
gathering Tunney Act-related responses to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I am am writing to express my strong opinion that the 
settlement, as it stands, is a very bad idea.
    I am a computer engineer, and I work for an ISP. As such, I have 
a better idea than most of the damage that Microsoft has done at a 
purely technical level.
    The problem is that Microsoft is very good at marketing, and 
unfortunately, many of its competitors are not. Moreover, the 
opportunity cost of allowing Microsoft to continue have been 
HUGE-but they are not really visible unless one has the 
technical background to appreciate the superior alternatives that 
have been driven out of the market by Microsoft's anticompetitive 
behavior. These costs have never been widely acknowledged.
    The damage Microsoft has done includes: 1. Undocumented, or 
poorly documented file formats. Primary among these are the file 
formats for the various Office applications. Microsoft's 
specifications on these formats are so complex and vague that no 
competitor-anywhere-has been able to reverse-engineer 
100% compatability. Further, whenever any competitor gets close, 
Microsoft releases a new update that once again braeaks 
compatability. Microsoft also uses these incompatabilities to force 
customers to upgrade.
    2. ``Embraced and Extended'' standards. Frequently, 
Microsoft has taken a widely accepted standard (DCE, Kerberos, SMTP 
auth, html, java) and changed it just enough that interoperating 
with anything other than a Microsoft product is partially or fully 
broken. They can do this because their desktop monopoly enables them 
to widely deploy their mutated standard. This is a deliberate 
attempt to fence off the commons, and make it proprietary to 
Microsoft. (For more information, search for ``Halloween 
Documents'' on the web, the section on Embracing and Extending 
Standards)
    3. Multiboot license restrictions. Not widely known are the 
boot-time restrictions that Microsoft places on its 
``partners''. These prohibit the display of multiple 
operating system choices at boot-up. For example, Be, Inc offered 
its widely acclaimed operating system for FREE to anyone who was 
willing to preload it on a computer in a dual-boot configuration. 
Those who took them up on that offer were quickly contacted by 
Microsoft legal, who prevented the display of the competing system. 
As a result, those who bought the computer had to go through a 
lengthy procedure to uncover the software that was provided to them 
for free-just because that software competed with Microsoft. 
For a more recent example, witness the ``relaxing'' of 
desktop icon restrictions by Microsoft: OEMs could put AOL's icon on 
the desktop only if it was accompanied by multiple icons advertising 
equivalent Microsoft services.
    4. Anti-competitive bundling. In the newest version of Windows, 
Windows XP, several applications are bundled and uninstallable 
which, by any definition of the term, are not operating system 
services. Examples include the XP's passport integration, and 
Microsoft instant messenger integration. Read any of the many 
reviews on the web which talk about how heavy-handed XP is in 
pushing users to subscribe to Microsoft services.
    This last point gets to the heart of the matter. Microsoft uses 
its desktop monopoly to leverage itself into other spaces in a 
unique and anticompetitive fashion. Permitting this to continue with 
just a consent decree and judicial oversight is no remedy at all. 
Remember that the current lawsuit was started because the previous 
consent decree did not restrain Microsoft's anticompetitive leanings 
in any significant fashion. Please don't repeat the same mistake!
    As a citizen, voter, engineer, and consumer, please require that 
the conviction against Microsoft mean something! Please use all your 
efforts to require competition in the software marketplace. I know 
it may seem risky in this slow economy, but long-term, the best 
thing for the economy and the consumer is sufficient competition in 
the market.
    Thank you,
    Van Lindberg
    Provo, UT



MTC-00019346

From: Ameesh Patel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:49pm
Subject: MSFT Settelement
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. Please do not 
allow it to move forward in its current form.
    Microsoft is once again using the terms of an agreement to wipe 
out competition. Specifically, because Microsoft maintains an 
operating system monopoly, Section III(J)(2) will leave Open Source 
projects such as Apache, Samba, and Sendmail very vulnerable to 
Microsoft's predatory practices. Because under the terms of this 
agreement, Microsoft would not be forced to describe or license 
protocols that affect companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria 
as businesses. This would effectively allow Microsoft to write code 
in such a way as to make it impossible to use with Open Source code, 
thereby forcing users of Microsoft operating systems to use only 
software that Microsoft creates itself or allows non-competitors to 
create.
    Microsoft is doing what it has done many times in the past. It 
has squashed competitors through tactics of intimidation, buyout, 
and outright theft. Now it is attempting to reverse the initial 
verdict which declared unequivocally that they were a monopoly, back 
to their advantage.
    As a taxpayer, I find it disgusting that Microsoft is allowed to 
act in such a cavalier manner toward the US justice system. They 


[[Page 26705]]


continually display an arrogance that shows they have no regard for 
the law.
    Please, do not allow them to remap the playing field to their 
advantage. It is not in the interests of the United States for one 
company to exert so much control over the electronic infrastructure 
of our country-as ongoing and extremely alarming security 
problems with Microsoft products demonstrate.
    Sincerely,
    Ameesh Patel
    10810 N. Ridgewind Ct.
    Tucson, AZ. 85737


MTC-00019350

From: Drake Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Three words: Rethink it carefully.
    Two words: Bad proposal.
    One word: Ack!
    Drake Wilson



MTC-00019352

From: Alex Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern (or Renata B. Hesse):
    I would like to submit my comments regarding the Microsoft 
Settlement in the United States of America vs. Microsoft case as per 
the Tunney Act. I believe that in its current state, the Stipulation 
and Revised Proposal Final Judgement of the United States of America 
vs. Microsoft Corporation is designed to prevent Microsoft from 
engaging in the very behavior which led to its being found guilty, 
and in that regard, is fine. However, there are several problems 
with the entire settlement that in my opinion, should lead to 
scrapping most of, if not all of the judgement. In its current 
state, the document does not properly punish Microsoft for its 
guilty actions, nor does it completely prevent Microsoft from doing 
the same things again in a Monopoly fashion. Instead, if this 
Stipulation and Revised Proposal Final Judgement is accepted, 
Microsoft will simply use its monopoly position to change the 
methods by which it prevents competition from gaining a foothold in 
the market and taking away any of Microsoft's current market share.
    I want to focus on one particular section, which I believe 
undermines the entire settlement and judgement agreement. In regards 
to section III-J of the Stipulation and Revised Proposal Final 
Judgement, I believe that this section will result in additional 
civil trials. Specifically, Microsoft will argue it cannot open its 
source code as it is protected by section III-J, and therefore, they 
cannot fulfill the other obligations of allowing ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware'' to be freely operated as they would have 
to open source their computer code that would affect their 
operations, copyrights, and intellectual assets as protected in 
Section III-J. Section III-J.2. tries to address this point, but it 
becomes a very circular argument, as Microsoft can argue it knows 
its software best and opening it up would indeed violate Section 
III-J. 1., even though they are partially required to do by Section 
III-J. 1. While the three person Technical Committee (TC) in Section 
IV-B is designed to assist in determining which Microsoft source 
code is open for use and which isn't, it is very likely that 
Microsoft will argue in court against every single request of the 
TC. Further, it is likely that since Microsoft code is designed to 
be thoroughly intermingled, such that any Microsoft application 
works smoothly with any other Microsoft application, that opening 
ANY source code given to ``Non-Microsoft Middleware'' 
companies would violate Section III-J. 1. Even if it is possible to 
separate out aspects of the code covered under Section III-J. 1., 
such that source code could be given to ``Non-Microsoft 
Middleware'' companies, it is likely that this new software 
would not work as well as Microsoft ``Middleware'' 
products which have full access to the source code. Therefore, since 
this new non-Microsoft ``Middleware'' does not work as 
well as it should, it would quickly fall out of use among consumers 
because it didn't work. However, it would have failed directly by 
being set up for failure by Microsoft, and indirectly from consumer 
choice/market forces because the product could never work properly 
on a Microsoft-based operating platform. This final point is the 
most crucial because of the fact that Microsoft does indeed have an 
operating system majority (monopoly) on operating systems for most 
of the desktop computers in the U.S.A. If the new non-Microsoft 
Middleware cannot properly work on the majority of US computers 
since most of them have Microsoft Windows on it, how can the 
Middleware producers compete at all?
    I now want to address the whole decision, and share my thoughts 
on the logic under the judgement, which I believe is partially 
flawed under the logic of laws, punishment, and justice. As I 
mentioned above, while I do believe that the judgement will prevent 
Microsoft from doing most of the actions it did before, it is not 
receiving any punishment for those actions. The actions prohibited 
in the document were illegal to begin with, and this judgement 
merely states that Microsoft will stop doing illegal actions, which 
by law, they should not be doing in the first place. Further, if 
they do these illegal actions, they should be expected to be 
punished under the law if found guilty. They were found guilty of 
monopolistic acts outlined in the Sherman Act, and therefore, should 
be punished. Since Microsoft's practices have hurt certain non-
Microsoft ``Middleware'' companies, certain US states 
covered in this case, and possibly the US consumer due to lack of 
product choice, it stands to reason that a punishment against 
Microsoft, perhaps leading to compensation of the plaintiffs, should 
be part of this settlement. As I looked through the settlement, I 
did not see this covered at all. However, this sort of compensation, 
and attaching a monetary value to it, will likely result in unending 
greed and even more lawsuits which ultimately will not result in a 
proper handling of justice in this case. Unfortunately, any 
punishment against Microsoft will most likely result in hurting its 
base employees, which may not have been guilty of the actions that 
led to this settlement. Therefore, monetary actions should be taken 
out against Microsoft management and leadership, since they approved 
the actions that led to their guilt in this case. I believe this is 
important, otherwise the guilty upper leadership will simply take 
the monetary damages out on others in its company, resulting in 
unemployment of solid lower-level workers who were not guilty.
    If monetary compensation will result in more injustice, then 
another solution makes more sense. Since most everyone (US and 
worldwide) uses Microsoft's base operating system (Windows) for its 
computers, it suggests that Microsoft's Windows OS has become the de 
facto standard of operating system for computer users. Therefore, to 
ensure they cannot exploit this monopoly further, (which they were 
proven guilty of) their source code, which enabled their monopoly, 
must be opened for EVERYONE to use. Microsoft should not be allowed 
to collect royalties on it, and all copyrights must be removed 
allowing all computer programmers, who desire to make products for 
commercial use, to work with the base source code free of charge. 
What this does is that it completely levels the playing field for 
all computer ``Middleware'' producers, such that no one 
has an advantage due to proprietary source code which everyone has a 
working copy of, but only one company (Microsoft in this case) has 
full access to. Now Microsoft will be forced to compete with 
everyone else on level footing, and any market share they gain will 
be due to hard work and product acceptance, not from unfair market 
advantages imposed by monopolistic practices. Therefore, Microsoft 
is effectively punished by removing the monopoly that it currently 
enjoys and uses to make profits at the expense of others.
    If this were the proposed punishment and settlement for this 
case, I suspect Microsoft would oppose it violently, but it would 
indeed end the monopoly and force Microsoft to work just as hard as 
everyone else to get a product accepted by the market. Microsoft 
would not be at a complete disadvantage in this environment, as they 
still produce updates to the operating system that everyone buys, so 
they still maintain huge market share in operating systems. Under my 
suggestion mentioned above, the operating system would be open for 
all to use, and Microsoft would be forced to use its extensive 
wealth to develop new products and innovations to compete with all 
the new players in the market of ``Middleware''. 
Therefore, the consumers, states, and US all win due to all the new 
choices and the loss of the previous monopoly. If you desire more 
clarification on what I've written here, or need additional 
information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time 
and 


[[Page 26706]]


for reading my comments regarding this decision and settlement.
    Sincerely,
Alexander B. Morgan, Ph.D.
303 Harrison St.
Midland, MI 48640
Email: [email protected]



MTC-00019353

From: Nathan Hubbard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    -Nathan Hubbard
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00019355

From: Joseph Roth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reviewing the points in the Proposed Final Judgement ( 
from here on referred as pfj ) I'm afraid that I would like to go on 
record as opposed to the pfj. I feel that the pfj allows Microsoft a 
way to get around every one of the points made. Some by just 
renaming software, others by not giving out information in a timely 
manner. To top it off there seems to be no real effective way to 
enforce the ruling, leaving it up to the legal system. The 
government has spent millions on this case and should not; in my 
opinion, throw in the towel in the final round.
    Joseph Roth ( JB )
    Joliet, IL
    [email protected]



MTC-00019356

From: Charles Welsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement....
    Over the last decade, I have known executives at two different 
companies (Neither of whom were mentioned in the antitrust trial) 
who lost their businesses solely because Microsoft decided that they 
should not continue to exist.
    I also continue to work with companies who cannot conceive of 
choosing other than a Microsoft solution to base their products on. 
They simply assume that Microsoft will use its monopoly power to 
kill all competitors in any product area that it enters. Therefore, 
it is efficient to base their businesses solely on Microsoft 
technology and therefore risky to use any other technology.
    I am hopeful that you will assess a meaningful remedy and a 
punitive sanction against Microsoft. In doing so, I hope that you 
will choose to take actions that allow real competition in the 
industry again. The market power that Microsoft commands is truly 
astonishing. The current remedies proposed do not correct this 
situation.
Charles V. Welsh
5949 Killarney Circle
San Jose, CA 95138
408.528.7681 V
408.528.7680 F
CC:[email protected];;@inetgw



MTC-00019357

From: Richard Jetton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I write you to voice my disapproval of the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. There are many reasons for my 
opinion, but the most pressing are quite simple. There is nothing in 
this proposed settlement that returns competition to the markets 
where Microsoft has illegally gained an unfair advantage.
    To rectify the past illegal actions of Microsoft, a fair 
settlement should include these points.
    1. Microsoft must freely and publically publish the complete 
source code for all software and firmware products it currently 
sells, and for all future products it offers during the next ten 
years. All software must include checksums of the resulting compiled 
images, and instructions on how to reproduce those images. This is 
the only way to allow third-party vendors to compete in areas where 
Microsoft has become the only player.
    2. Microsoft must forever stop the practice of ``free 
bundling'' of its software (including operating systems) with 
PCs and other products. This practice hides the true cost of 
software from the consumer, and reduces the options available to 
consumers from retailers. This is especially true of the PC market. 
All Microsoft software addons to hardware purchases (including 
operating systems) must have a line item price that accurately 
reflects the prevailing retail price for Microsoft software. Also, 
Microsoft must charge the same to all of its customers, regardless 
of their purchase volume. Therefore, the consumer cost of a 
Microsoft product will be nearly the same reagrdless of when or 
where it is purchased.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be heard in this important 
matter.
Richard Jetton
108 Heath Place
Westmont, IL 60559
[email protected]



MTC-00019358

From: Truman Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern:
    Dear Sir/Madam, My Name is Truman Phillips, and I work as a 
network administrator for my employer. I have been active in 
computers for the last 10 years or so, and in this time, I have seen 
many things come and go, and unfortunately, many products that were 
very good in quality/reliability have fallen to the wayside due to 
Microsoft's continued Monopoly status. Many software developers have 
been either run out of business by Microsoft's ``benevolent to 
consumers'' bundling practices, or Microsoft just outright 
purchased the companies. Stacker Technologies (Maker of Data 
Compresion software, Microsoft was found guilty of backward 
engineering Stack's technology) Netscape's Navigator/Comunicator web 
Broswers, back in 1995 William Gates, acting as a spokesman for 
Micrsoft had at times told people that Microsoft was not interested 
in the Internet, and shortly after they chagned directions, and 
started to incorporate a web Browser in Windows so that they could 
leverage thier current Monopoly to gain Market share.
    I personally feel that the solutions presented as a settlement 
in the ongoing legal proceedings are by and far inadequete to 
restrain Microsoft's Monopoly on Operating Systems, or to nuture 
honest competetion in the marketplace. I also do not think that a 
breakup of Microsoft as was previously attempted would accomplish 
anything more than to make two/three smaller monopoly companies. I 
do feel that a market wide solution could be attempted. Microsoft 
has managed to maintain it Monopoly through preloading of software 
as the Computer Manufacturer.
    I would propose a marketwide solution of a software package 
preconfigured and imaged to a CD-Rom disk(s) and sold as a seperate 
package. In this way, true Market choices could determine if there 
will be a monopoly.
    In any event, I am not a lawyer, and this may not be feasible 
from a leagal standing. But please take to heart my opinion that as 
the current agreement stands is a bad deal for the consumers of 
America.
    Sincerely,
Truman P Phillips
    3320 Oak Harbor Road
    Fremont, OH 43420
    [email protected]



MTC-00019359

From: Ken Nuessle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am very displeased with the proposed settlement the United 
States Justice Department wants to reward the predatory company 
Microsoft with its flagrant monopolistic practices. There desire to 
stiffle competing software in any venue is directly hurting the 
consumer. The proposal i saw did virtually nothing to protect the 
common person from this company. Some suggestions for things that 
need to be done to help other software companies. Certain aspects of 
the various Microsoft operating systems should be made open, 
particularly the API's and any file types. There is no reason for 
file types to remain closed, other than to hurt competition so 
multiple programs cannot coexists and work with the same files.
    Internet explorer should be made an option, with a way of 
removing it. This is one buggy program which if you have a windows 
product leaves port 80 susceptable, not to mention the general 
assumption of webmasters to take shortcuts and ignore the other 
browser types. I use Opera 6.0 and Netscape 6.2 which don't work in 
certain instances not as a fault of they're own but more a result of 
Microsofts domination through uncompetative means.
    Thank You for your time
    Ken Nuessle
    [email protected]


[[Page 26707]]




MTC-00019360

From: J G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Joel Garringer and I would like to comment on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. I do not believe that the proposed 
final judgment what appear to me to be the two core areas wherein 
Microsoft has abused their monopoly power. I do not believe that the 
proposed remediation does an effective job of forcing Microsoft to 
allow other software developers the ability to fully support 
interoperability with Microsoft applications and operating systems.
    Because Microsoft produces both an OS and the applications that 
run on it, they have the ability to conceal from competing 
developers the API's that the windows OS exposes. The remedy does 
not do a good job of defining what portions of the Windows API 
should be released to the public.
    If competition and innovation are really concepts that all of 
the parties involved with this case value, then I believe that it is 
perfectly reasonable to expect Microsoft to release the full windows 
API, and to release these API's as soon as they become available 
within Microsoft.
    Additionally I do not believe that there should be any 
restrictions on the types of development programmers who refer to 
Microsoft's API documentation are allowed to participate in. To give 
a developer access to the Windows API but not allow them the freedom 
to work on applications that may-or-may not run on Windows 
undermines the effectiveness of the settlement. I my mind this issue 
is the biggest, but not the only fault in the Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Thanks.
    Joel Garringer
    Sr. Web-Application Designer/Developer
    1307 N. Irvington
    Tulsa, OK 74115



MTC-00019361

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please be aware that, after reading the finding of facts as well 
as most of the appeal decision and the subsequent proposed 
settlement, I cannot agree at all with Microsoft being allowed to 
continue in the manner that the settlement will permit. Please 
strongly consider harsher and more specific anti trust measures that 
will put competition back into the marketplace and give all 
consumers more choice in how we do something as pervasive as 
computing.
    I do not want to live my life in a Microsoft dominated world at 
the expense of choice.
    Thanks for your time and consideration.
Jeffrey A. Worth
8B Tucker Park
Pepperell, MA. 01463



MTC-00019362

From: Dean Antonelli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Following are my comments in support of the recommendations put 
forth by the nine non settling states.
    Microsoft's predatory, monopolistic, and anti- competitive 
practices are well documented. They are under legal fire in the 
United States, China, Brazil and Europe. And yet, with their 
enormous monopoly gained resources they manage to buy a settlements 
i.e.. with nine states, to buy endless legal delays (that promote a 
denial of justice) while their products and associated proprietary 
training become ubiquitous, capture the marketplace and eliminate 
innovation and competition.
    All this at a time when Americans are making sacrifices and 
responding with unprecedented patriotism to threats against our 
country and its beautiful inherited legal system which is the envy 
of the world. Microsoft, Enron-the global investment community 
is watching. America's business practices are on trial.
    THIS IS THE TIME FOR OUR LEGAL SYSTEM TO UPHOLD THE LAW FOR THE 
BENEFIT ALL BUSINESSES, CONSUMERS, INVESTORS, INNOVATION, 
COMPETITION AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
    Best regards,
    Dean Antonelli
    19799 Oakhaven Dr.
    Saratoga, Ca. 95070



MTC-00019363

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:03pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement does not at all address 
the monopolistic practices of Microsoft. Perhaps the best solution 
to all, is the requirement of open file format standards allowing 
other programs to read and write Microsoft files. This would allow 
competing operating systems to convert Microsoft infrastructure 
while at the same time allowing Microsoft to maintain the secrecy of 
their source code.
    I think the settlements being considered inadequate and 
furthering the monopoly of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Anderson



MTC-00019364

From: Sean Bruton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I 
will be mailing a letter outlining my objections to the settlement 
to the Department of Justice.
Sean Bruton
Senior Engineer
NeoSpire, Inc.
v: 214.292.8170
f: 214.720.1836
www.neospire.net



MTC-00019365



MTC-00019366

From: Thera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit 
the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes 
against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is 
able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot 
commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their 
illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their 
abuses and not for the American people in general. I don't believe 
that the current proposal provides adequate reparations to those 
injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
    Hundred, even thousands, of small companies have ceased to exist 
over the decades because of Microsoft's business practices. Similar 
to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become a 
government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Thank you for your time,
    Theresa Peterson



MTC-00019367

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having reviewed the available material, I do not agree that the 
proposed settlement will be at all effective in any of the areas of 
punishing Microsoft for the offenses of which it has been found 
guilty, preventing future violations, or making any realistic 
restitution to those harmed to date.
    Microsoft maintains its monopoly almost solely through punitive 
contracts with OEMs which discourage them from offering alternatives 
to Windows. It is only their monopoly that gives these contracts 
``teeth''. If OEMs believed that they could obtain equal 
treatment from Microsoft in spite of offering competing products, 
they would offer those products if the market wanted them. As it is, 
OEMs are too scared to offer 


[[Page 26708]]


even Windows-based products that are 
seen to threaten Microsoft's monopoly. A perfect example is the Sun 
Java Runtime for Windows. This product is free, yet when Microsoft 
decided to remove their own Java Runtime from Windows XP, no OEM 
dared to bundle the Sun Java Runtime with their Windows-preloaded 
PCs for fear of retribution from Microsoft. The only effective 
throttle on Microsoft will be to force it to deal equally and fairly 
with OEMs. OEM deals should be in the public domain, and any OEM who 
has been the victim of discrimination ought to be able to recoup 
extreme punitive damages. These are not conditions to which an 
arbitrary software company should ordinarily submit, but in the case 
of Microsoft, they constitute a ``punishment which fits the 
crime''. Microsoft has abused its monopoly position by wielding 
this weapon against OEMs in order to maintain its monopoly, and it 
is only just that any punishment demand damages from Microsoft in 
this area. The proposed settlement will be, in my opinion, 
absolutely ineffective in controlling such abuses in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Francis T. Griffin
    Biddeford, ME



MTC-00019368

From: Brian Trosko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. 
The proposed remedy amounts to nothing more than another consent 
decree, the same sort of thing that Microsoft has simply ignored and 
violated many times in the past; the proposed regulations seek to 
regulate Microsoft's behavior, but have no teeth as far as 
enforcement of that regulation, and so will have very little ability 
to prevent Microsoft from extending its monopoly power and engaging 
in more anticompetetive, anti-consumer behavior. Microsoft was found 
be be acting illegally as a monopoly; any remedy to this crime needs 
to end that monopoly power, and the proposed settlement completely 
fails to do that.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Trosko
    [email protected]



MTC-00019369

From: Eric Jungemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not buy into the settlement with any contingency on 
Microsoft services or software being provided directly. This 
settlement must be platform agnostic. I view the Microsoft offer as 
a thinly veiled attempt to get the remaining 5% of the desktop 
(Apple1s) to increase their monopoly further. The settlement must in 
fines/money into a fund without Microsoft being able to declare 
retail or even heavily discounted values of their products/services 
against the fund. After all, what is the true incremental cost to 
Microsoft for burning an extra Windows XP or Office XP CD. Let the 
schools have complete discretion (and perhaps encouragement to act 
contrary to the Monopolist) and Microsoft offerings against the fund 
must be at their largest discount to ANY of their customers.
    Sincerely,
Eric Jungemann
General Partner
InfoMatrix
Tel/Fax/Vmail: 530-672-0144
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.infomatrix-usa.com



MTC-00019370

From: Dale Schoeck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement against Microsoft in this antitrust cast 
is not a viable solution, and lacks the teeth to force Microsoft to 
ment its ways.



MTC-00019371

From: Jack Norskog
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the 
emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is 
therefore not in the public interest. It should not be adopted 
without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Billies latest vow is to Kill Linux. Now a little monkey and 
good to be a large gurilla. He has teams visiting the enterprise 
companies offering incentives not to employ linux and us Microsoft 
products. They have pernission to sell these products cheap or 
actually give them away to keep them out of their networks.
    Please, reconsider the final judgement.
    Jack Norskog



MTC-00019372

From: bobygladys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:58pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
ROBERT B. JORDON
33 BEAUVOIR COURT
DERWOOD, MD 20855
301-963-4084
January 16, 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 thoughts on the Microsoft case. I am 
very glad to see that there has been a settlement reached. This case 
has dragged on for nearly three years and in my view has hindered 
the countries economic development. Accepting this settlement will 
allow both Microsoft and the U.S. Government to apply their 
resources to endeavors more pressing and of greater benefit to the 
public than the pursuit of prolonged legal battles.
    I use Microsoft products on a daily basis. I feel the company 
has built an excellent array of products and applications which have 
greatly facilitated the interchange of information and ideas 
throughout the world. I applaud the concept of free and open 
competition as well as recognize the need for business to 
aggressively pursue growth. Microsoft has become a leader in the 
market through bringing to the public the product that best suits 
the consumers'' needs. I believe that the settlement will aid 
other companies in developing competing and complementary 
products-whether this advantage is warranted, or not, seems to 
be a decision that your organization has reached a decision upon 
which I would like to see brought to rest. This appears to me to be 
a sufficient step in responding to the claims of monopolistic 
practices.
    For the sake of all concerned please settle this suit and allow 
Microsoft to concentrate on their business and contribution to the 
U.S. economy.
    Sincerely,
    Robert B. Jordon



MTC-00019373

From: Sheila Medd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a taxpayer I would especially like to see this matter settled 
as agreed to by most of the parties in November. As a consumer, I 
would prefer to have no more government regulation than we already 
have as it tends to increase the price I pay for items. I believe 
that the settlement should remain as decided in November in the 
interest of hopefully an aid to the ailing economy especially since 
the events of September 11th.
    It is my hope therefore that the the Microsoft settlement will 
be approved without change.
    Sincerely,
    Sheila G. Medd
    Crossville, TN



MTC-00019374

From: Velocity Channel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an IT professional, Microsoft's tactics have made my job 
increasingly more stressful. As a consumer, Microsoft has taken away 
choice. They would like you to believe that their only concern is 
the end user, but the fact of that matter is they strengthen their 
monopoly everyday using illegal means to shove their software and 
services down our throats.
    Windows needs to be restrained. Let MS make their operating 
system. But please keep them from filling it up with their own 
versions of software like web browsers, instant messaging clients, 
email clients and internet access. MS has the advantage and 
continues to shove their products down our throats by incorporating 
these programs into Windows. This leaves competitor's applications 
to suffer. It is not fair to these companies, and to the users. We 
want choice. Don't let MS tell you what they think we want. Let us 
tell you what we want, so that you can make the proper decision.
    Please make Microsoft accountable for their actions. Keep them 
in line by watching 


[[Page 26709]]


and questioning their every move. If this isn't 
done, I am afraid that the term Federal Government may be preceded 
by the word Microsoft very soon.
    I don't think that the current settlement is enough and I don't 
support it. Impose stronger restrictions on this company. I think 
you had the right idea when you originally decided to break them up.
    Thank you,
Brian DePardo
43 Bailey Street
Cranston, RI 02920
401-943-3239



MTC-00019375

From: Harry G. Hudak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's just get it over. This case, from the outset, has been 
about those who are not inclined to compete. They are lazy, 
slovenly, and just plain whiners. They just think ``it's not 
fair! They have more than I do and I want some. Guess I'll go to 
court for my share.'' I for one say more power to Microsoft. 
It's called CAPITALISM! If you can't stand the heat, get out of the 
market-place. If you truly have a product that is worthwhile, people 
will buy it. Just get it out there.
    Netscape used to be a good browser. As a matter of fact, I used 
to use it. Then AOL bought it and the only thing they seemed to be 
interested in was hemming me in to ONLY their content. I now use 
Internet Explorer. AOL ruined the internet. THEY are the ones who 
should be outlawed.
    So, again, just end it. You have wasted enough of our TAXPAYER 
dollars on an issue the CONSUMER will settle with his DISPOSABLE 
INCOME!
    Harry G. Hudak



MTC-00019376

From: Art Carran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't rush to settlement. Microsoft's long term illegal 
behavior deserves an appropriately stiff penalty.



MTC-00019377

From: Kristen McNall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Proposed Final Judgement does not go far enough 
in limitting Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Microsoft's 
must be prevented from leveraging its OS monopoly to distribute 
additional products.
    Thank you,
    Kristen McNall
    Mosier, Oregon



MTC-00019378

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dir Sirs,
    I believee that there are serious flaws with the proposed 
Microfoft settelment. Please refer to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html
    Thank you
    William Tonseth
    Software Engineer
    Hudson, NH



MTC-00019379

From: Thomas Lyon Gideon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appalled at the mere suggestion, in the proposed 
settlement, that Microsoft be ``forced'' to donate 
software, to a set limit, to schools. Aside from the, arguably 
invalid, implication that Microsoft sets their pricing so directing 
them to give away $XXX worth of software means they could 
conceivably set their prices to give away one $XXX copy of Windows. 
What the DoJ must realize is that much path dependency when it comes 
to software is developed while users are in the educational system. 
If students learn Microsoft software, what are they going to be 
encouraged to buy when they matriculate and become good little 
consumers? If anything, this aspect of the proposed settlement 
practically gives Microsoft a stronger hold on a potential enlarged 
consumer base than they already have. Rather than allowing them to 
propagate their software further, the proposed remedies for open up 
the ISVs and OEMs should have more teeth, especially the smaller, 
regional ``white box'' providers. Letting Microsoft donate 
their product to a captive audience is more like spraying gasoline 
on a fire than spraying foam.
Thomas Gideon
Senior Software Engineer
B2eMarkets
    mailto:[email protected]
    http://www.gideonfamily.org/tom/
    jabber:[email protected]



MTC-00019380

From: Roy Hollinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    As a software professional (Senior Software Developer) I have 
serious concerns with the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The 
biggest problem is that the consent decree is in many ways like the 
1995 decree, it doesn't really stop Microsoft from doing anything. 
The definitions that the decree are based on are overly restrictive 
and narrow.
    This proposed decree appears to be written solely by the 
Microsoft lawyers as it doesn't offer any protections to individuals 
like me in either my personal or professional life. I'm also 
concerned that the decree doesn't have any protection for tools that 
provide inter operability between operating systems and platforms. 
The decree appears to give Microsoft the ability to change their 
SDKs, interfaces and protocols with little effort. This would allow 
Microsoft to kill tools that exist to provide cross platform 
communications, such as SAMBA and Wine.
    Roy Hollinger
    3321 Darrah Ave
    Morgantown, WV 26508



MTC-00019381

From: Sean Stevens V.2.0
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is keeping innovation out of the computer market. I've 
seen it firsthand. people can't compete, they are too big.
    -sean stevens,
    Brookline, MA



MTC-00019382

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am adding my voice to the number of people who feel that the 
Dept of Justice's remedy of the Microsoft Antitrust case is woefully 
inadequate, and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the 
issues involved, including what is at stake.
    I fear that allowing Microsoft to continue with these paltry and 
easily sidestepped penalties will not be good for the consumer as a 
whole, and will stifle innovation instead of encourage it. I am 
writing to encourage that the DOJ rethink its decision, and press 
for hard and firm penalties this time.
    -Gary Takahashi, MD
    Please send all email to [email protected] or 
[email protected].
    My ohsu.edu account has closed and will no longer be forwarded 
to me.



MTC-00019383

From: Trevor Goodyear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to add my vote to those who are not satisfied with 
the current terms of the settlement with Microsoft. Those penalties 
which it does impart on the company will likely prove ineffectual in 
their attempts to stop Microsoft from continuing its practices of 
leveraging other companies out of business.
    As an example, forcing Microsoft to donate software to schools 
is preposterous. The academic world is one of the few realms in 
which non-Windows machines have a foothold. Such donations would 
only work in Microsoft's favor.
    If you believe at least part of your responsibility is to make 
sure such behavior is not repeated, you will not accept the current 
proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Trevor Goodyear



MTC-00019384

From: Gregg Bloom as Colz Grigor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. My name is Gregg Bloom. I am a voting citizen of the 
United States and a resident of Santa Cruz, California.
    I do not find the current proposal between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice to be satisfactory. Microsoft has been found 
guilty of manipulating its monopoly to the 


[[Page 26710]]


detriment of the computer-using community for over a decade. It 
has had very bad business practices including taking advantage of 
much smaller companies in order to use the smaller company's superior technology and, in effect, put the smaller company out of business.
    I do not think the proposed judgment successfully addresses the 
companies that are no longer on-going concerns as a result of 
Microsoft's bad practices.
    I believe that the best way to address this issue has several 
components.
    First, I would like to see Microsoft forced to redesign its 
operating system so that any individual component that has been 
included with a distribution of Microsoft Operating Systems (95, 98, 
me, XP, and .net) can be replaced with a third-party's version of 
software that performs the same function. In order to do this, 
Microsoft will need to provide detailed specifications for all of 
its existing and future components of their operating system for a 
period of time (I believe ten years is satisfactory), and a very 
easy process for a user of Windows to select the components of the 
operating system that they would like to interchange with software 
that they have received from a third party.
    Second, I would like a small government agency established. This 
agency will receive money from Microsoft (a set amount per year for 
the term of this judgment (ten years at 500 million a year?)) and 
will fund smaller companies attempting to improve on the individual 
components of the operating system. This agency will be responsible 
for evaluating business plans for the proposed improvements, and 
will be able to withhold payment if it is apparent that the small 
company is not performing as anticipated.
    ::Gregg Bloom



MTC-00019385

From: Scott Metzger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I think you should let Microsoft run the US goverment. I mean 
History shows how current power always falls.. Look at the Roman 
Empire. It was great like the US and then it fell.. Same thing could 
happen to the US. =)
    or of course you could make windows XP a free program. Don't 
they have enough money?



MTC-00019386

From: David McCuskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-needs to be stronger!
    hello,
    just wanted to say that the Microsoft settlement is a **BAD** 
idea. it essentially rewards them for their monopolistic behavior by 
giving them a tax write-off ( not paying full price for software/
machines via inflated prices )and entering in an area ( education ) 
for which they haven't been able to grab.
    == Quality
    Microsoft products are sub-standard by any means and are 
expensive, but MS can afford to continue this practice because they 
are a monopoly. they purposefully withhold information regarding 
their products ( protocol specifications, etc ) so that their 
software will be preferred on their system ( even over other 
windows-based software ).
    Their previous operating systems: ( esp Win95, Win98 ) were some 
of the buggiest OS's around ( this is documented ). i have first 
hand experience - i run Win98 because i need to use Internet 
Explorer on a PC to check websites that i create.
    Microsoft software has been shown to be extremely insecure ( 
even by MS themselves )-just search for the various security 
holes and viruses from this past year alone-and is running on 
a majority of the computers in the world. this is scary. they do not 
act quickly enough for their position of responsibility. ( to handle 
this, they usually come out with another version of an OS, name it 
something different, and charge people again for a fix to the 
problems that were in the original software ).
    == File formats
    MS has purposefully safeguarded file formats and changed them ( 
notably, MS Word ) so that their software 1. is constantly re-
purchased by the users ( though most people don't need any new 
``features'' ) 2. other software manufactures cannot 
create competing software ( due to file format incompatability 
issues ).
    ==Open Source their stance against Open Source software is 
totally unfounded. with OS, they have found an opponent that they 
cannot fight or buy so have resorted to their Fear, Uncertainty and 
Doubt ( FUD ) tactics, and have barred OS software from their 
systems.
    OS software is some of the best written AND SUPPORTED software 
on the planet because there are many people who can look at and 
change the code. it has been proven that this model works-and 
practically all Universities, and many companies, etc use OS 
software on a daily basis ( Perl, Python, mySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache, 
emacs, Linux, GCC ( software compiler ), etc ). all of these are 
highly regarded as the best tools. and a majority of the Internet is 
created and run with these tools. it is the end-users that are 
suffering for these practices. development and innovation have been 
stifled ( R&D isn't necessary if you're the ``Only Kid on 
the Block'' ) and their computing experiences are rife with 
frustration ( ask me, my parents and friends ).
    Push for a harder settlement:
    i don't think the settlement is enough-the amount they 
should have to pay should be 10 times more... they have gained their 
position of power and wealth via monopolistic practices.
    thank you,
david mccuskey
programmer and consultant
David McCuskey
m 503.544.7220
f 755.640.8823
www.mccuskeyconsulting.com



MTC-00019387

From: RGA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department-
    As a user of Microsoft products, I favor the settlement that the 
Department and several of the State Attorneys General have 
negotiated with Microsoft, and urge that you finalize that 
settlement on its existing terms. I believe that this settlement is 
in the public interest and should be submitted to the court with the 
recommendation that it be approved in its present form.
    I have followed the litigation closely. It appears to me that 
too little weight is being given to the fact that Microsoft's 
success in the market was based on merit, not market share. The 
sooner that this protracted litigation can be finally resolved, the 
sooner that Microsoft will be able to return its full attention to 
its first priority-the consumer, innovation, and improved 
products at lower prices.
    Thank you.
    Gordon Appleman



MTC-00019388

From: ARobertWSimmons@ cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:04pm
Subject: AOL-Netscape vs Microsoft
    Netscape became netscrap due to their inability to innovate and 
update to KEEP there customers. Customers especially happy customers 
keep you motivated to do better, Netscape was not able or capable of 
listening to their consumers. Microsoft a newcomer to the browser 
market had what I would call a lousy product in the beginning. With 
their consumer follow up and product hotline they took the heat made 
product changes and today they have a great product that works well 
with just about any program. Netscape via AOL today will kick you 
from programs and you have to reboot to get back into that program.
    AOL knew or at least I hoped they knew that what they were 
buying was a oversize peice of software that needed alot of work to 
make it a streamlined player iun the game of Browsers. Don't use the 
feable excuse that Microsoft bundle the product with Windows that 
caused Netscapes problems that just not true. You still had to buy 
the Windows program and you paid alot of money for that software. I 
was glad to get anything and everthing they had for that purchase. 
It works great then and it works great today. I've bought Netscape 
Gold, Netscape Premium, and Netscape programs to assist me in other 
online programs in the past, and after a month trying to work anyone 
of the programs I deleted the programs and went on with another 
program. If AOL is so hot on Netscape I have three different progams 
that Netscape came out with I'll be more than happy to send them 
back for credit.
    Microsoft products and Internet Explorer works well, with ease, 
and does not take up alot of memory.
    Tell AOL to market their product the right way and listen to the 
consumers whobuy the products, and maybe they may have a chance in 
getting back market share they have given upon hoping that the DOJ 
would help them with. Let the consumer be the judge of what products 
are good, and what product systems they wish to buy.
    Thank you, I was just going to say a few words but I got on a 
consumer roll.


[[Page 26711]]


    RW Simmons



MTC-00019389

From: Scott Lavergne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is unacceptable. I am a computer consultant 
mainly handling the end users. Microsoft makes my job possible. 
There poor software provides endless hours of work for me and my 
company. If it were not for Microsoft I would have one tenth of the 
revenue. Yet, I am taking time out of my day to request that 
Microsoft be split into three perhaps 4 companies. This would 
provide for some competition and finally some better software. I see 
the splits happening as follows.
1. Office products (MS Office, MS Money)
2. Internet Services (MSN...)
3. Server Software (Exchange, SQL)
4. Operating Software (Windows)
    This configuration would hopefully over time dilute the force 
that is Microsoft and eventually bring stable reliable software to 
the small business end user.
    Sincerely
    Scott Lavergne



MTC-00019390

From: Brendan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's not about a monopoly, it's about one company being in 
control of most of the worlds computers by way of licensing and 
price. It's about giving other companies a chance to succeed.
    Brendan



MTC-00019391

From: Chris Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in opposition to the proposed settlement of the 
U.S. case against Microsoft Corporation. In particular, I request 
that the following, or something substantially similar, be made a 
condition of any settlement with Microsoft:
    Microsoft shall be required to disclose all application 
programming interfaces (APIs) that are used by any software sold or 
given away by Microsoft that is not included with Windows 98, 
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, 
Windows CE, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, or any subsequent 
Microsoft operating system implementing portions of the Win32 API, 
as well as any Microsoft Middleware component that is offered for 
free download by Microsoft, including Internet Explorer (``add-
on code''). Microsoft shall further be required to provide 
public documentation of these application programming interfaces, 
available to software developers at a reasonable cost, at a similar 
level of detail to Microsoft's existing documentation of public 
APIs, not to exceed the per-page cost of said documentation. 
Microsoft shall further be obligated to fully disclose the effects 
of API calls made by its add-on code, including the side-effects of 
specifying particular arguments to these API calls.
    The technical committee or any third party shall have the 
authority to inspect Microsoft's add-on code, in binary form, and 
documentation to verify compliance with this provision.
    Nothing in this section shall compel Microsoft to provide any 
such add-on code for free for use with non-Microsoft operating 
systems; however, no add-on code sold for any monetary cost 
(including ``Microsoft Office'') shall require the use of 
a Microsoft operating system for execution of said code. Further, 
nothing in this section shall limit the technical committee's rights 
to examine source code as set forth in the agreement.
    I also fully support the position of Dan Kegel, et al, in their 
forthcoming letter regarding the settlement.
Christopher N. Lawrence
Ph.D. Candidate and System Administrator
2000 Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress, 1st District of 
Mississippi
Oxford, Mississippi
Chris Lawrence -http://
www.lordsutch.com/chris/



MTC-00019392

From: Jay Mehaffey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft deserves to be broken up, any lesser punishment is an 
injustice.
    Jay



MTC-00019393

From: Gregory P. Turza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We live in the greatest industrialized civilization in human 
history. In the last 20 years we have experienced a computer 
revolution that has increased our productivity beyond our previous 
ability to imagine. The greatest leader in that revolution is Bill 
Gates and the company he created, Microsoft. It is an obscene 
injustice that instead of honoring and admiring Microsoft as the 
greatest modern hero of this industrialized civilization, that we 
instead are imposing any punishment whatsoever upon it.
Gregory P. Turza
2415 N Kedzie Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60647
773-294-1779



MTC-00019394

From: Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sending this e-mail to protest the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the government of the United States. I have 
been a software developer for over 18 years. I have seen the birth 
of the PC and watched as it has become a vital part of our everyday 
lives. The computer has been both my livelihood and hobby for a long 
time. I have used Microsoft products in the past and I do now. I use 
the best tools for the current job.
    Sometimes that's Microsoft, sometimes it's not. Over the years I 
have watched Microsoft grow from basically a garage operation to a 
massive global company that has unbelievable say in the direction of 
the computer industry. Apparently, Microsoft has forgotten, or never 
knew, that with that immense power comes great responsibility. I 
believe that Microsoft has damaged the computer industry. Due to 
their incredible marketing and legal might, they have forced PC 
manufacturers to include only their software and no other. The have 
tried to prohibit manufacturers from selling PC's without an 
operating system. They charged manufacturers for a copy of the 
Windows OS even if they did not ship it. Even today, it's virtually 
impossible to buy a PC with no operating system from a major 
manufacturer.
    I am aware of the false error messages planted in the Windows 
3.x beta product that were produced when running on DR DOS which 
killed that software. They gave away an inferior web browser simply 
to crush a technically superior product just because they could. 
They have operated under and ignored a previous consent decree 
designed to reign in their behavior. They have lied in court, 
produced false evidence, faked ignorance of e-mails. They had a 
``Contest'' among PC manufacturers to report people who 
buy PC's with no operating system installed.
    Following are some of the remedies that I would like to see. I 
believe that they would go a long way towards opening up competition 
in the software industry.
    1. Force Microsoft to open up their complete API's. That's every 
one of them.
    2. Prohibit Microsoft from changing any API's unless published 
first.
    3. Force Microsoft to open Windows source code to companies that 
make competing software.
    Also, Microsoft should pay a fine based on the severity of their 
monopoly conviction. I believe that this fine should be large and be 
based on the profits that were gained from their monopolistic 
behavior. I am aware that some of my points may seem trivial and not 
connected to the anti-trust trial. The trial points are clear and 
well known. I wanted to present some other points that may or may 
not be so well known as reasons for my sending this e-mail.
    Thank you for your time.
    Dennis Cottrell
    [email protected]



MTC-00019395

From: Rich Griswold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing today out of concern over the Proposed Final 
Judgment in the Microsoft antitrust case. I have several years of 
computer experience, and am currently working towards my Master's 
Degree in Computer Science, so the settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case will have a large impact on my future.
    I have read documents covering the Proposed Final Judgment, and 
I have several concerns. These concerns are summarized nicely by Dan 
Kegal at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html:


[[Page 26712]]


    The problems identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment 
(PFJ) can be summarized as follows:
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    * Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    * The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    * The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    * The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    * The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
    * The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    * The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    * The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    * Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system 
-even for computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs 
were once banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    * Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs- including regional ``white box'' OEMs which 
are historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    * The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. Considering these problems, one must conclude 
that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay 
the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. 
Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest, and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    I am troubled by the possibility that all of the time and money 
spend on the Microsoft antitrust case could end up wasted, and that 
we could have a repeat of the 1994 consent decree. Allowing 
Microsoft to maintain, and even expand, their monopoly will stifle 
competition, innovation, and growth in the computer industry as well 
as other high-tech industries.
    As someone who is very concerned about the future of the 
computer industry, I do not want to see this happen. Please consider 
these arguments against the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Thank you. -
    Richard Griswold [email protected]



MTC-00019396

From: Albert Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir:
    I cannot believe the DOJ is allowing Microsoft to keep its ill-
gotten gains but is going to trust it to stop!? I believe the 
solution from Judge Jackson was the minimum due. Divide the beast.
    Thank you,
    Al Howard



MTC-00019397

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my support for the Microsoft Position 
regarding the settlement you are considering.
    It is my feeling that Microsoft has achieved its success by 
focusing on the services it could supply to ``the user''. 
Its'' commitment to excellence and to the consuming public has 
brought great value to everyone and a modicum of standardization 
upon which even its'' competitors have been able to build their 
products and their own success stories. Its'' competitive 
spirit has, also, stimulated and enriched others within its'' 
industry. This should not be misinterpreted as ``abuse'' 
but, rather, applauded for its'' contribution to the growth og 
our economy and ``others'' within industries of all kinds. 
This is the time for us to focus on market competition and technical 
achievement as well as cooperation within the industry. It is my 
opinion that that will make the consumers'' computing 
experience easier, more valuable, and contribute to the economy 
during these most trying times. Continued litigation is, at the 
least, a waste of financial resources and, at the worst, consuming 
vital time from Microsoft, a very hard working, consumer orientated, 
and competent Company.



MTC-00019398

From: Mark Manley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft V.S. Choice
    It saddens me deeply to see the government take the inititive 
and choice out of the computer industry by allowing Microsoft to so 
completely dominate things. Who would spend money to develop new 
technology, knowing Microsoft can, at a whim run right over you!
    Mark Manley
    2346 S 119 E Ave
    Tulsa, Ok 74129



MTC-00019399

From: Bob O'Connell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is a slap on the wrist because it lets 
Microsoft put Their software in more places as a punishment, give me 
a break. If you want to make it a punishment fine them the cost of 
computers plus the retail price of the software, then they can 
purchase the computer and software they want.
    Here is a link to an article that says exactly what I was 
thinking. http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/01/21/
020121opsource.xml



MTC-00019400

From: Joel Seiferas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm busy right now, but I certainly DO NOT AGREE with the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    Joel Seiferas
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019401

From: Michael J. O'Neill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It's punishment so 
trivial as to be a relative 


[[Page 26713]]


reward to Microsoft for its actions. I 
do not believe the proposed settlement is in the best interests of 
consumers or citizens of the United States.
    Michael J. O'Neill
    47 Valley Hill Dr.
    Holden, MA 01520
    508.829.3187



MTC-00019402

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I think Microsoft should be disbanded, it's assets sold off (no 
microsoft employees allowed to buy) and the money be given back to 
the share holders and it's customers. Their 33 billion dollars in 
cash in the bank should be paid back to everyone who was over 
charged and any company that was put out of business by Microsoft 
FUD and strong arm tactics. Myself included.
    I have since switched to apple computers for my personal 
computer needs and have never looked back. With Mac OS X I can DO 
ANYTHING I want, on the internet, with music, video, writing 
software weather it be Java, Perl, HTML, C++ or Objective C. I have 
the tools to do thing fast and with style without the MS baggage and 
the cost associated with over priced bloatware. I do not like being 
rip off by Microsoft with their constant forced upgrades that give 
you no real benefit, and over priced bug ridden software was just 
too much and not even worth it anymore at stay with the 
``standard''. Which is why I left them forever. The same 
things can be done in Win 98 or the Mac OS that you can do with Win 
XP there is real no functional difference or advantage to XP over 98 
or the Mac. But MS says that XP is so much better than win 98 you 
need to buy this or be left behind. But in reality most people do 
not need to. MS just wants more of your money with nothing given 
back other than flash and no substance. Microsoft is not the 
standard. It's the exception to the rule. They take standards like 
Java, Kerberos, HTTP, TCP/IP, etc... and change them in such a way 
that it makes it incompatible with everyone else just enough so that 
it makes difficult or impossible to use. What was once a easy to use 
system is corrupted to make it work only on windows. They tired this 
with java by putting windows OS hooks in their java compiler so that 
if you made a java application or a java applet on a windows machine 
it would not work on the Macintosh or Linux OSs, and when they were 
called on it they dropped java altogether calling it a virus. That's 
no joke.
    They have done this time and time again. They violate NDAs when 
it suites them with no more than a ``We're Microsoft, suck it 
up and deal'' I know of friends who have experienced this first 
hand. Microsoft knows NO ONE is going to take them to court because 
no one can outspend MS, and it seems not even the federal government 
can either.
    They copy what they want, they steal what they want, they do 
what they want and there is no one to stop them. They have no fear 
of being sued, with the exception is really big companies. I hope 
AOL gets somewhere with their lawsuit concerning Netscape I believe 
they will not in the end, Not because AOL does not have a case but 
because they are Microsoft and just dazzle the judge with a lot of 
hard to understand ``facts'' and then MS wins. And the 
status quo is maintained.
    I finish with a quote. ``A market-crushing company can no 
more be called CAPITALIST than an abortion-clinic killer can be 
called Christian.'' ? Sue Doanim
    Thank you for your time,
    Adam Chaney, Programmer
    PS. I'm writing this on a Powerbook G4 Titanium using apple's 
Mail program on Mac OS X 10.1.2.



MTC-00019403

From: DeeKay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement hardly deserves this name. Where's the 
punishment for the wrong Microsoft has done? If you let them get 
away that cheap, you ultimately prove that the government doesn't 
have any power over a company as large as that! Besides from that: 
Microsoft itself hasn't paid a single dime in taxmoney last year, so 
quit treating them as if they were the great taxpayer that needs not 
to be harmed!
    Best regards,
    David Keegan



MTC-00019404

From: David Pohlman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is a shame that the settlement with Microsoft was determined 
by who won the election, not the merits of the case. Make them do 
something real rather than just promise to be better next time. The 
``donation'' to the schools is something that is designed 
to further kill competition.



MTC-00019405

From: Nocon, Rizaldi C.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am from a developing country and we need very good but free 
software. If Microsoft eventually kills the idea of free software by 
strangling/stiffling it, how can we get access to the same.
    Regards,
    Rizaldi Nocon
    Manila, Philippines



MTC-00019406

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not solve the problem of Microsoft 
being able to illegally sustain their monopoly. If the settlement is 
accepted, it will merely allow them to continue on as before, 
unhindered. -
    Nat Tuck 
    81 High St
    Rockport, MA, 01966



MTC-00019407

From: Mark Rice
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    People of the Department of Justice, I am just a U. S. Citizen 
and not a lawyer. But I think the settlement is just a slap on the 
wrist. It does not remedy the continuing pattern of abuse. If we had 
real competition in desktop OSes and office software we would not 
see Microsoft do the following:
    A) Treat the customer with contempt. The product activation 
feature means I have to ask permission to use what I have paid for. 
They would not be able to do this in a competitive environment.
    B) Prohibit OEMs from shipping machines that boot to both 
Windows and another OS such as Linux, BSD or BeOS. You can not buy a 
dual boot computer from an OEM. The market craves this. Something is 
wrong.
    C) Reward workers at OEMs for telling Microsoft who has ordered 
``Naked Computers'' without an OS installed. Microsoft 
thinks it is entitled to collect money for every computer even if it 
does not have a Microsoft OS on it.
    D) Have dead people write letters of support to state Attorneys 
General. Microsoft was not even apologetic when they were caught on 
this one!
    Thank you for reading my rant!!
    Yours Truly
    Mark S. Rice
    1514 Oyama Place
    San Jose, CA 95131



MTC-00019408

From: Alan Mortensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are many that know the law and government proceedings more 
than I, so I will refrain from commenting on them directly. What I 
experienced is the damage that Microsoft has done first hand. I've 
been a Java developer and Macintosh user for many years now and the 
actions I have witnessed are a travesty. They cast a shadow over the 
entire industry where the executives always ask, what will Microsoft 
do? Will they care enough to take us out or buy us? What I value as 
a developer is innovation and Microsoft has done everything in it's 
power to crush innovation in other companies and therefore in the 
industry as a whole. They have exhibited not only incidents of 
monopoly behavior but a consistent and pervasive pattern of abuse of 
power.
    On the subject of the decision, I don't see how this decision 
will change any of their techniques and it will take up considerable 
manpower to try to enforce. Trying to solve Microsoft via a 
bureaucracy is not a reasonable solution, there will always be too 
many vulnerabilities, either from loopholes or corruption. I'm no 
expert on punitive practices, but I do know a fair amount about 
business practices and I don't think this decision will slow them in 
the least. They will just adapt around it. They are a monopoly and 
they need to be handled specially for it. My primary suggestion is 
exposure (source code) and extreme fines. A 


[[Page 26714]]


break up sounds unlikely 
but I would prefer it, a horizontal break up, consisting of multiple 
OS/Office/Database/etc. vendors that could compete.
    Alan Mortensen



MTC-00019409

From: Charles Levine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments on settlement of Microsoft Antitrust case
    I support the proposed settlement reached between Microsoft, the 
DOJ, and nine states. The legal process has run its course and it is 
time to conclude this matter. It is difficult to see what harm has 
come to consumers from the ``browser battles'' that were 
the crux of the case. The settlement focuses on changes to 
Microsoft's business practices which seems reasonable in light of 
the ruling by the Court of Appeals. Continued litigation is in the 
interest of only two groups: (1) Microsoft's competitors, and (2) 
the lawyers working on the case. The purpose of antitrust laws is to 
protect consumers, not competitors.



MTC-00019410

From: Theta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a 
Technical Committee with investigative powers, but appears to leave 
all actual enforcement to the legal system. What information needs 
to be released to ISVs to encourage competition, and under what 
terms? The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical 
information to ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several 
ways: 1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of 
competing middleware to meet ``reasonable technical 
requirements'' seven months before new releases of Windows, yet 
it does not require Microsoft to disclose those requirements in 
advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    2. API documentation is released too late to help ISVs Section 
III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN or similar 
means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft Middleware 
Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be required at 
the time of the final beta test of the covered middleware, and 
whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 beta testers. 
But this information would almost certainly not be released in time 
for competing middleware vendors to adapt their products to meet the 
requirements of section III.H.3, which states that competing 
middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet unspecified 
technical requirements seven months before the final beta test of a 
new version of Windows.
    3. Many important APIs would remain undocumented The PFJ's 
overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' and ``API'' means that Section III.D.'s 
requirement to release information about Windows interfaces would 
not cover many important interfaces.
    4. Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the 
Released Documentation ISVs writing competing operating systems as 
outlined in Findings of Fact (?52) sometimes have difficulty 
understanding various undocumented Windows APIs. The information 
released under section III.D. of the PFJ would aid those 
ISVs-except that the PFJ disallows this use of the 
information. Worse yet, to avoid running afoul of the PFJ, ISVs 
might need to divide up their engineers into two groups: those who 
refer to MSDN and work on Windows-only applications; and those who 
cannot refer to MSDN because they work on applications which also 
run on non-Microsoft operating systems. This would constitute 
retaliation against ISVs who support competing operating systems.
    5. File Formats Remain Undocumented No part of the PFJ obligates 
Microsoft to release any information about file formats, even though 
undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications 
Barrier to Entry (see ``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39).
    6. Patents covering the Windows APIs remain undisclosed Section 
III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to license certain 
intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to require 
Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software patents 
protect the Windows APIs (perhaps in the style proposed by the W3C; 
see http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/#sec-
disclosure). This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in an 
uncertain state: are they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft 
software patents? This can scare away potential users, as 
illustrated by this report from Codeweavers, Inc.: When selecting a 
method of porting a major application to Linux, one prospect of mine 
was comparing Wine [a competing implementation of some of the 
Windows APIs] and a toolkit called ``MainWin''. MainWin is 
made by Mainsoft, and Mainsoft licenses its software from Microsoft. 
However, this customer elected to go with the Mainsoft option 
instead. I was told that one of the key decision making factors was 
that Mainsoft representatives had stated that Microsoft had certain 
critical patents that Wine was violating. My customer could not risk 
crossing Microsoft, and declined to use Wine. I didn't even have a 
chance to determine which patents were supposedly violated; nor to 
disprove the validity of this claim.
    The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal situation to continue, 
is inhibiting the market acceptance of competing operating systems. 
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited? The PFJ prohibits 
certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, but curiously allows 
the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas. Which practices towards ISVs should be 
prohibited? Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain 
exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs.
    However, Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, 
none of which are mentioned in the PFJ. Several of Microsoft's 
products'' licenses prohibit the products'' use with 
popular non-Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples 
are given below.
    1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source 
applications The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA states 
... you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that 
contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, 
any software that is distributed as free software, open source 
software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models 
... Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, 
software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses 
or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar 
to any of the following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or 
Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the 
Mozilla Public License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun 
Community Source License (SCSL); ...
    Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, are shipped by 
Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated redistributable components. 
Applications that wish to use them must include the add-ons, even 
though they might later become a standard part of Windows. Microsoft 
often provides those SDKs under End User License Agreements (EULAs) 
prohibiting their use with Open Source applications. This harms ISVs 
who choose to distribute their applications under Open Source 
licenses; they must hope that the enduser has a sufficiently up-to-
date version of the addon API installed, which is often not the 
case.
    Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include the 
competing middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office 
suite StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, 
and discourage the use of, competing 


[[Page 26715]]


middleware and office suites. 
Additionally, since Open Source applications tend to also run on 
non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting loss of market share 
by Open Source applications indirectly harms competing operating 
systems.
    2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who target Windows-
compatible competing Operating Systems The Microsoft Platform SDK, 
together with Microsoft Visual C++, is the primary toolkit used by 
ISVs to create Windows-compatible applications. The Microsoft 
Platform SDK EULA says: ``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce 
and distribute ... the Redistributable Components... provided that 
(a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only in 
conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product...''
    This makes it illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++ 
on Windows-compatible competing operating systems. By allowing these 
exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is contributing to the Applications 
Barrier to Entry faced by competing operating systems. Which 
practices towards large users should be prohibited?
    The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses its 
products to OEMs, but not on how it licenses products to large users 
such as corporations, universities, or state and local governments, 
collectively referred to as ``enterprises''. Yet 
enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-processor 
licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 consent decree in the 
earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for 
each desktop or portable computer which could run a Microsoft 
operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft software is 
actually installed on the affected computer. These agreements are 
anticompetitive because they remove any financial incentive for 
individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft software. Which 
practices towards end users should be prohibited?
    Microsoft has used both restrictive licenses and intentional 
incompatibilities to discourage users from running Windows 
applications on Windows-compatible competing operating systems. Two 
examples are given below.
    1. Microsoft uses license terms which prohibit the use of 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems MSNBC (a subsidiary 
of Microsoft) offers software called NewsAlert. Its EULA states 
``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft 
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.] .... ``
    Only the Windows version appears to be available for download. 
Users who run competing operating systems (such as Linux) which can 
run some Windows programs might wish to run the Windows version of 
NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this. MSNBC has a valid interest 
in prohibiting use of pirated copies of operating systems, but much 
narrower language could achieve the same protective effect with less 
anticompetitive impact. For instance, ``MSNBC Interactive 
grants you the right to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT on your computers running validly licensed copies of 
Microsoft Windows or compatible operating system.''
    2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems An 
episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called 
MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the 
operating system. Digital Research offered a competing operating 
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run 
programs written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were not 
operating systems per se, but rather middleware that used the DOS 
API to interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was 
concerned with the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and added 
code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and 
misleading error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's 
successor company, Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit against 
Microsoft in 1996. (See the original complaint, and Caldera's 
consolidated response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary 
judgment.) The judge in the case ruled that ``Caldera has 
presented sufficient evidence that the incompatibilities alleged 
were part of an anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.''
    That case was settled out of court in 1999, and no court has 
fully explored the alleged conduct. The concern here is that, as 
competing operating systems emerge which are able to run Windows 
applications, Microsoft might try to sabotage Windows applications, 
middleware, and development tools so that they cannot run on non-
Microsoft operating systems, just as they did earlier with Windows 
3.1. The PFJ as currently written does nothing to prohibit these 
kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities, and 
thus encourages Microsoft to use these techniques to enhance the 
Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use 
non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Microsoft 
applications software.
    Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
    The problems identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment 
can be summarized as follows: The PFJ doesn't take into account 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems Microsoft increases 
the Applications Barrier to Entry by using restrictive license terms 
and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit 
this, and even contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier 
to Entry. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions 
and Provisions
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace 
Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all. The PFJ allows users to 
replace Microsoft Java with a competitor's product-but 
Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The PFJ should therefore 
allow users to replace Microsoft. NET with competing middleware. The 
PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines that 
term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, 
Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box-operating systems that all 
use the Win32 API and are advertised as being ``Windows 
Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible 
middleware-but only after the deadline for the ISVs to 
demonstrate that their middleware is compatible. The PFJ requires 
Microsoft to release API documentation-but prohibits 
competitors from using this documentation to help make their 
operating systems compatible with Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents. The PFJ does not 
require Microsoft to list which software patents protect the Windows 
APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in an 
uncertain state: are they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft 
software patents? This can scare away potential users.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on Windows. 
Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows 
apps from running on competing operating systems. Microsoft's 
enterprise license agreements (used by large companies, state 
governments, and universities) charge by the number of computers 
which could run a Microsoft operating system-even for 
computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned 
by the 1994 consent decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft Microsoft has in the past inserted 
intentional incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from 
running on competing operating systems. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system. The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate 
against small OEMs-including regional ``white box'' 
OEMs which are historically the most willing to install competing 
operating systems-who ship competing software. The PFJ allows 
Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on 
criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This 
allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible 
operating systems to increase its market share in other 


[[Page 26716]]


areas. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. Considering these problems, one must conclude 
that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. Therefore, 
the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and should 
not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    Thank You For Your Time,
    Theresa Peterson



MTC-00019411

From: Joe Naccarato
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in opposition to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. I feel that any settlement in this case 
needs to do more to curtail Microsoft from continuing its illegal 
practices. If justice is to be served, a new settlement needs to be 
drafted which is less favorable toward Microsoft. The vast majority 
of the provisions within the settlement only formalize the status 
quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will effectively prohibit 
Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly position in the 
operating system market. This is especially important in view of the 
seriousness of Microsoft's past transgressions. The current 
settlement must be thrown out and a new one must be drafted if the 
court is truly to have served its purpose in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Naccarato



MTC-00019412

From: Jim Cubbage
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear People,
    Please do not settle with Microsoft. They need to be punished 
and any settlement they can agree to is insufficient punishment. The 
history of their actions in regards to other settlements shows they 
are not trustworthy and will not abide by settlements. This company 
has hurt all consumers by profiteering, quashing competition and 
creating mediocre software for which there are no alternatives. 
Please help invigorate the market by curbing Microsofts predatory 
business practices through imposing a true solution rather than 
reaching a settlement.
    Sincerely yours,
    Jim Cubbage
    218 1/2 W 4th Ave
    Olympia, WA 98501



MTC-00019413

From: Tony Brancato
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I do not believe the Proposed Final Judgement has adequate 
safeguards to prevent Microsoft from continuing its illegal 
monopolistic practices. I urge the Court to reject the Proposed 
Final Judgement.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony T. Brancato, Jr.
    265 Loden La.
    Rochester, NY



MTC-00019414

From: John Callaway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my strong displeasure with the 
Department of Justice's proposed settlement with Microsoft in the 
antitrust case. Enumerating all the flaws with this settlement would 
take too much of my and your time, so I will restrict my comments to 
the aspects of the proposed settlement relating to Microsoft's 
licensing contracts with personal computer original equipment 
manufacturers (OEMs).
    As I understand it, the settlement does little to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its anticompetitive practices that prevent 
OEMs from offering rival operating systems, such as Linux and BSD, 
preinstalled on their systems. For example, section III.A.2 
specifically allows Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs that sell a 
computer with a rival operating system but without a Microsoft 
operating system. This is essentially a legally sanctioned tax 
collected by Microsoft, especially considering that the open-source 
operating systems I mentioned are free. The settlement also appears 
to specifically allow Microsoft to set any contract terms they like 
with smaller OEM vendors (any other than the 20 largest), which is 
clearly anticompetitive.
    I will recount a personal experience of mine that illustrates 
the costs imposed on the consumer by Microsoft's restrictive OEM 
licenses, even those consumers who choose a Microsoft operating 
system. About a year ago, I helped my parents choose a computer at a 
Gateway 2000 store in Overland Park, Kansas. We selected the system 
that met our price and performance criteria, which was part of 
Gateway's ``home'' line of systems. We then asked to have 
Windows 2000 preinstalled on the machine instead of Windows ME, 
because of the superior stability and performance of the former 
operating system. Our sales representative informed us that this 
would be impossible, since Microsoft's license with Gateway 
stipulated that their home line of computers MUST be shipped with 
Windows ME (at that time, in December 2000). We therefore had to 
settle for one of their ``small business'' computers, 
which was not as feature-rich as the home computer we selected and 
cost several hundred dollars more.
    Thank you very much for reading my comments, and I hope that 
this harmful settlement is discarded and appropriate remedies 
imposed on Microsoft instead.
    John Callaway
    [email protected]
    136 Pine St. Santa Cruz, CA 95062



MTC-00019415

From: Timothy A. Seufert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams, I write as a citizen concerned with the 
Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. Microsoft.
    There are numerous problems with the proposed settlement plan. 
For example, it appears that looseness in definitions will allow 
Microsoft to change the names of products mentioned in the 
settlement plan to avoid obeying the proposed behavioral 
restrictions. The plan must be very cautiously reworded to prevent 
Microsoft from exploiting loopholes.
    More importantly, I feel there are basic deficiencies in the 
plan's coverage of the numerous ways in which Microsoft enforces its 
monopolies. One which seems obvious to me is the lack of a remedy 
for Microsoft's use of closed file formats.
    Microsoft uses closed file formats to help sustain their 
monopoly on office productivity software. Microsoft's office 
productivity suite owns most of the market; most organizations have 
standardized on it and own no other software covering its 
functionality. As a user of alternate operating systems (MacOS X and 
Linux) I often find that such organizations cannot generate or 
accept anything but Word documents, even when I try to use a more 
open and crossplatform format like Adobe's PDF. For example, I am 
presently looking for a job, and so far as I can tell all the HR 
departments and job placement firms who deal with my profession 
(electrical engineering) more or less require electronic resume 
submissions to be in Word format. This is in Silicon Valley, the 
heart of anti-Microsoft sentiment! Microsoft's lock on this kind of 
software is that strong.
    The result of such social pressure is that I must either expend 
continual effort educating people about how to use formats other 
than Word (not a good idea to annoy people this way when I'm in the 
position of looking for a job, I might add!), or I must buy a copy 
of Word so that I can read and write the de facto standard file 
format. In practice, few people are willing to take on the persnal 
cost of the first option.
    From another point of view, an organization which wishes to 
convert from Microsoft's office package to somebody else's faces a 
huge migration issue. Organizations become locked in to using 
Microsoft's software because there is no easy way for them to 
convert their document archives.
    If Microsoft's file formats were open, it would be easier for 
alternative productivity software to gain entry to the market. It is 
routine for those who do try to compete with Microsoft in this area 
to reverse engineer Microsoft's formats, but Microsoft is always 
playing a game of changing the formats with each new Office release 
so that everybody with the latest version of Word/Excel/etc. is 
generating documents incompatible with other software. Furthermore, 
the quality of support is never as good as it could be were 
Microsoft's file formats open.
    To summarize, competitive office products must read and write 
Microsoft's file formats with a high degree of compatability. 
Through obscurity and constant change of these formats, Microsoft 
has created an artificial barrier to entry. In order to break down 
that barrier, Microsoft should be required to fully document its 
file formats in a timely fashion. Ideally they would have to keep 
the public informed of future changes, rather than just documenting 
what happened after the fact.


[[Page 26717]]


    Similar concerns probably apply to areas other than office 
productivity software, but I wanted to comment on something that has 
impacted me personally.
    In closing, I'd like to think you for your consideration in 
reading my comments.
    Tim Seufert



MTC-00019416

From: James Drabb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust 
case is wrong. Microsoft is getting off way to easily, please bring 
justice to the money hungry giant. -
    James Drabb JR
    Darden Restaurants
    Business Systems
    Programmer Analyst
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00019417

From: Kate Conner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement between the U.S. and Microsoft does not 
go far enough to ensure that the un-competitive practices that the 
company has been found guilty of doing will not continue. As a 
company, they have proven that court orders are irrelevant to the 
way that they conduct business and it is extremely doubtful that any 
new court order or external oversight will dampen the negative 
impact that Microsoft's illegal monopoly has had on the computing 
industry. Unless serious and drastic changes are made to the 
structure and operations of the company, they will continue to 
stifle innovation and fair competition throughout the IT world and 
any other industry they leverage their way into.
    Thank you,
    Kate Conner



MTC-00019418

From: Jeff Malins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    The current judgment, as written, does nothing to prevent 
Microsoft from introducing intentional incompatibilities into new 
versions of its operating system as an anticompetitive measure. 
Microsoft has used such strategies in the past, (ref: the private 
suite brought up by Caldera, Inc. that was settled by by Microsoft 
in 1999). This is a key concern for end users on non-Microsoft 
platforms, and I believe the judgment should be revised to address 
this issue.
    Thank You,
    Jeffrey S. Malins
    Honolulu, HI



MTC-00019419

From: Al Kolwicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I have read that AOL has filed suit against Microsoft for its 
methods of marketing of the browser. This foolishness should be 
stopped.
    1. Netscape captured market share using give-away techniques.
    2. It should always be a company's option to giveaway product in 
order to achieve other strategic objectives-consider razors 
& blades, and printers & cartridges.
    3. It should always be a company's option to make deals with its 
customers and its distributors. I believe that a quantity discount 
can be legitimately combined with a preferential status. I'll give 
you top billing if you'll give me X discount. I'll place your name 
on the cover if you'll commit to a fixed number of units at a fixed 
price per unit. Etc.
    4. I chose the Internet Explorer from Microsoft because it is 
superior, and presented a path that was more compatible with where I 
want to go.
    5. I have both Netscape Communicator 4.74 and Internet Explorer 
6.0 on my workstation.
    6. I use IE almost exclusively because it works best for me in 
my environment, and I have faith that Microsoft best understands 
what is required to fill the needs of the future-and I am 
confident that they will perform.
    Those who do not wish to compete should stay out of the 
commercial world. Microsoft should be encouraged, not discouraged 
from making the innovations needed to exploit opportunities for 
increased productivity. It is wrong of the States to gang up on 
Microsoft. It is wrong of AOL to attempt to use our government and 
justice systems to cause harm to Microsoft.
    In my opinion, Microsoft is a model competitor. They have 
created an enormous ``cottage industry'' for hundreds of 
thousands of non-Microsoft employees. And they have created a 
platform that is sufficiently open, and has enough users to entice 
product developers to produce high quality low cost applications.
    I ask that DOJ disregard AOL's whining and that DOJ reexamine 
the merits of the case. In my opinion, we need more producers in our 
economy like Microsoft.
    Al Kolwicz
    Center for Interactive Multimedia Business Applications
    2867 Tincup Circle
    Boulder, CO 80305
    303-494-1540
    [email protected]



MTC-00019420

From: Aaron Voisine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed microsoft settlement to be horrible. 
Aren't we supposed to be punishing this convicted monopoly abuser? 
Break them up, stop giving them government contracts, make them 
adhere to open standards for network protocols, APIs, and file 
formats. Do something!
    Aaron Voisine
    CEO
    GetToClass.com, Inc.



MTC-00019421

From: Michael Kellen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must register my opposition to the proposed settlement in 
United States v. Microsoft in its current form. The proposed 
judgement fails to address the required issues of `deny[ing] 
the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation', nor does 
is `ensure that there remain no practices likely to result in 
monopolization in the future'. (section V.D., p. 99).
    Adoption of the proposed settlement will be a betrayal of the 
public trust and a waste of the public monies invested in correcting 
the excesses of a convited monopoly. Without a strong punitive as 
well as corrective settlement, acceptance of this proposal will 
further erode the public trust in our legal system.
    Michael Kellen, Ph. D.



MTC-00019422

From: Chris Cothrun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comments about US v. Microsoft proposed settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I feel the proposed settlement does very little to remedy the 
situatations where Microsoft abused it's monopoly status as a 
software vendor.
    It is a very noble act to propose donating hardware and software 
to the nation's schools, however, this only serves to promote 
Microsoft's software and increase it's ubiquity and familiarity to 
our nation's children and teachers.
    Section J also raises concern regarding security best practices 
and methods Microsoft may use to avoid complying with whatever 
settlement is reached.
    I exhort Microsoft and the US Government to return to the 
bargaining table and arrive at another settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Cothrun



MTC-00019423

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will try to be brief, as I imagine you have many e-mails like 
this to read.
    I would like to urge you to reject the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft anti-trust case. It amounts to a slap on the wrist, 
and will not result in real changes for consumers.
    To me the litmus test of a reasonable settlement is this. Right 
now, in the current anti-competitive climate, a company like Apple 
is unable to even stop its slow but steady loss of market share, 
despite offerings of both hardware and software that are markedly 
superior to those offered by the Wintel world (dominated by 
Microsoft). It is difficult to imagine what Apple could do to make 
inroads in the market, given the stranglehold Microsoft has. A 
reasonable settlement would restore the possibility of effective 
competition by other companies such as Apple, Sun, and AOL Time 
Warner (Netscape). No more, but no less.


[[Page 26718]]


    The proposed settlement simply does not do that. Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices will continue virtually unabated (as they 
have in all the time since this suit began), everybody else's market 
share will continue to decrease, and the situation will be even more 
difficult to remedy further down the road than it is now.
    In my opinion, the original judgment (that Microsoft ought to be 
split into two companies) was reasonable and just. There may be 
other measures that will achieve the desired end of restoring 
competition to the market, but I doubt that they would be any less 
extreme.
    Thank you for your time.
    -Ben Haller ([email protected])



MTC-00019424

From: john baranowsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The setlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00019425

From: Michael Brauwerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Brauwerman -
    Software Engineer
    Office: HQ 432
    240-497-3000x2448



MTC-00019426

From: Jessica Slason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let it be known that I, Jessica Slason of Connecticut, do not 
agree with the proposed Microsoft settlement. Let this email serve 
as an official complaint.
    Thank you.



MTC-00019427

From: Donald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the governments action against 
Microsoft. This is a waste of taxpayers money and is having a costly 
effect on the economy. Let the market decide these issues; not the 
govenment. The only victims are those the government has created. 
The microsoft efforts were a win-win for everyone.
    Don Gordhamer
    Lakeville Minnesota



MTC-00019428

From: Vaughn Bender
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree What will that say to other companies....as to how 
they might act in a so called capitalist society. We have laws to 
pertect the good from the bad. Don't loose perspective as to is the 
good person and who is the bad. It is obvious who has broken the 
law. Please treat law breakers accordingly.
    Vaughn Bender
    -
    Summit Technology Group
    Vaughn Bender
    http://www.techplus.com/vbender
    --



MTC-00019429

From: Drew Colthorp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not think any settlement that does not guarantee good 
behavior on Microsoft's part in the future is reckless and 
irresponsible. The ``Settle for the Children'' campaign 
was a joke, and any decision that does not alter the structure of 
microsoft in some drastic way will be ineffective. Please do not let 
Microsoft get away with their anticompetitive practices, doing so 
would be a disaster.
    From my standpoint, Microsoft should be broken up. Any other 
practice would Microsoft-code specific optimizations, and 
integrations that do not make sense. Nearly every virus and worm on 
the internet targets outlook or outlook express, due to the 
widespread use (because of monopolistic practices) of these 
products, and the inherent vulnerabilities they contain. Honestly, 
why would you want your email client to affect every aspect of your 
system through scripting, and why would you want a seemingly 
innocent email to destroy valuable data? Problems like this will 
occur in the future if something is not done. The public has been 
forced into using inferior products for a long time, and anyone who 
says otherwise is a fool. Windows is unstable and insecure, and the 
general populous only upgrades to new versions in the hope that this 
new version of windows will be everything the last version was 
supposed to be. Why should anyone be forced to accept their 
operating system crashing on a daily basis, partially due to a 
nonsensible integration of an insecure web browser? There is no 
reason. Something drastic must be done.
    Drew Colthorp



MTC-00019430

From: qgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I would just like to say that the proposed Microsoft Settlement 
is a really bad idea. I have read the entire thing and have come to 
the conclusion that not only does this proposed settlement do 
NOTHING to curb the Microsoft abuses, but it may even give them more 
power. One example: the proposed settlement says it will allow a 
vendor to ship a competing product in place of a Microsoft product. 
So, for example, a vendor would be allowed to ship Netscape instead 
of Internet Explorer. However, the proposed settlement goes on to 
say that Microsoft, and Microsoft alone, gets to dictate the 
requirements for the replacement component. This means two things: 
1) Microsoft can stall a competitor indefinitely as it changes 
feature requirements or adds new ones and 2) Microsoft indirectly 
changes the competitors product. So if Microsoft says there must be 
a large ad at the top of every browser window that displays a 
Microsoft ad for their Internet Explorer, then it must be there. Or 
even worse, if Microsoft says that Active X (or something similar) 
has to be included, and it happens to be one of the things that is 
insecure, then that leaves every competitor's product insecure. Then 
there is the matter of Microsoft denying features in final products. 
They are already excluding Java because Sun would not let them 
sabotage it. Now, with this ``Settlement'', they could 
force Java out even among competitors. Microsoft was found GUILTY. 
They commited a crime. They were bad. They lied and are still lying. 
What do you do with children that behave this way? You send them to 
their room without dessert. You ground them for a month. You spank 
them. You make them perform chores. What does this settlement 
propose we do with Microsoft? It suggests we thank them, give them 
more money, and say, ``Sure Bill Gates. Its fine for you to 
break the law, ruin the competition, ruin the economy, ruin people's 
lives, lie, cheat, and steal. We don't punish the rich, especially 
those that line our pocket books.'' This is wrong. Punish them.
    Ben Renner
    6033 E. 33rd St.
    Tucson, AZ 85711



MTC-00019431

From: Brian Chiko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The currently proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft is an 
extremely bad idea-it 

[[Page 26719]]


makes no substantial progress in either 
punishing Microsoft for its obvious abuse of a Monopoly position, 
and it does even less to prevent it from continuing in the future. 
The future of innovation and competition in a large portion of the 
technology industry rests in the DOJ hands and it will be a serious 
harm to all Americans if Microsoft is left free to flout the 
country's anti-trust laws, and to continue to stifle competition. 
Please hold out for a settlement that is substantial in form and not 
just a quick politically-driven settlement that doesn't address the 
real issues.
    Sincerely,
    VP Product Management and Marketing
    Vpacket Communications, Inc.
    www.vpacket.com
    Office: 408-571-7910
    Cell: 408-859-2647



MTC-00019432

From: Darian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Personally, I feel like the settlement with Microsoft is letting 
them off too easy. You're simply sending them to their room, instead 
of giving them a spanking. All their toys happen to be in their room 
as well. Please rectify this. Thanks.
    Kevin Turner



MTC-00019433

From: mtdirect.cyberport.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I wish to state my support for Microsoft in the Antitrust 
Settlement Case. The proposed remedies are fair and corrective. 
Microsoft has always acted in the best interest of the consumer (of 
which I am one). Microsoft's efforts at technical advancement and 
inovation are appreciated by myself and my family.
    I also wish tp state my non-support for AOL-Time Warner 
(Netscape). I have moved away from Netscape based on my technical 
assessment of its capabilities and understanding of AOL/TimeWarners 
moved to lessen its support for open standards in an attempt to 
control their user's interface to the internet.
    John Yatchak
    4639 Blankenship Road
    Columbia Falls, MT 59912



MTC-00019434

From: S. Clunis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:24pm
Subject: Who says crime does not pay?
    Hi All,
    this ``agreement'' or whatever the legal term is makes 
a mockery of the legal system. Proof again that ``might makes 
right''. Microsoft has been doing this for years and getting 
away with it, leaving a long list of victims in their wake: Stacker 
QEMM IBM's OS/2 BeOS Office Suites-Wordperfect, Lotus Netscape 
To name a few. In any other industry these tactics would not have 
been consider dumping or worse. Your office has succeeded in sending 
a clear signal to the next would be rouge to keep on trucking they 
will win AND be richer in the end.
    Cheers,
    Stavros.



MTC-00019435

From: Pete Seabolt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    They deserved what they got the first time. I know Bush is big 
business but years down the road the Department of Justic doesn't 
want to be remembered as the one who had an opportunity to check 
Microsoft but didn't. Technology is too important to put all the 
eggs in one basket. While you guy are at it, you have better get 
some laws passed that will hold software developers liable for holds 
the leave in software. Microsoft is the most unsecured operating 
system in the world. It's the most susceptible to viruses. When you 
find China has had access to our computers for the years it will not 
play well with the news media.



MTC-00019436

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
To: The Dept. of Justice
From: Mrs. Carol ThorneCassady, 4057 SW
Concord St., Seattle, WA 98136 (206/938-0246)
    I am a second generation American. My paternal grandparents, who 
came from Europe, maintained a truck farm and passed away by the 
time I was six years old. My maternal grandfather, who left a yam 
farm in Louisiana with his family who had emigrated from Europe as 
possibly indentured workers, learned the trade of a shoemaker. I 
grew up in an extended close knit family. We lived in a home behind 
my grandparents. I saw, lived, and reaped the rich blessings/
benefits from GOD-Believing/GOD-Fearing, hard-working, family 
devoted and AMERICA loving people-my Parents and my 
Grandparents. My Grandfather owned his own business and for a year 
of so my father ran a small car repair business, a second job he did 
in the evenings and weekends. Now and then, my Grandfather would say 
that ``America is God's country. You can keep the fruit of your 
labor.'' I haven't really thought about what he'd said, till 
recently.
    It's been just recently that I've been able to spend time 
reflecting on what's contributed to the greatness of AMERICA and my 
passionate love for my country. I know the origin is, my Family.
    Upon the death of my dear husband in June 1990, I received some 
money in a settlement from his employer. I had to start learning/
reading about investments. By 1994-95, I liked what I'd 
studied and read about Microsoft. So I bought some shares of stock. 
What was really impressive was the fact that Bill Gates 
``shared'' his wealth with all his employees by vesting 
them with his stock. I'd never heard nor read about another business 
that operated like Microsoft. Mr. Gates shared his wealth-he 
didn't hoard it. More importantly for today, he's donated millions 
for education, children and global health concerns.
    How dare these evil trial attorneys attempt to rob and destroy 
Microsoft! These attorneys have all ready robbed and terrified how 
many other American companies?
    I'm not talking about the huge multi-national companies that 
have engaged in unfriendly takeovers-these are the 
corporations that should never have been allowed to become the giant 
monopolies they are, like AOL Time Warner. How many browser 
companies have they gobbled up and they're attacking Microsoft which 
has only about 12% of this market. This is in America's interest?
    Microsoft has provided the United States of AMERICA and the 
world with constant, consistent, innovative computer technology. 
Email anyone??? They opened up the field-the prices dropped. 
They're still dropping. This is a monopoly?
    Thank God for Microsoft! It's been an amazing decade, the 
nineties. Imagine, ten years ago I used a small electric typewriter, 
a big improvement from my college days in the 1960's-70's and my 
basic typewriter. Today, I use a laptop computer and I send most of 
my mail through it. It's incredible! Thank you, Microsoft!
    All litigating attorneys in AMERICA must be stopped. They're 
corrupting and bleeding AMERICA. They must be stopped!!!
    No one has the right in AMERICA to steal the fruit of someone's 
labor. If you don't earn it, you don't get it. GOD has clearly 
stated ``Thou shalt not steal.''
    I hope and pray our Justice Department will end this diabolical 
charade being perpetrated on AMERICA, AMERICANS and all AMERICAN 
businesses.
    Please settle this larcenous suit against Microsoft now. As for 
the corrupters of the Common Good, the trial attorneys, prison is 
too good for them.
    God Bless our Justice Dept. and God Bless America!
    Mrs. Carol ThorneCassady
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019437

From: John Osborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
18730 56th Avenue NE
Kenmore, WA 98028
January 23, 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 antitrust case 
settlement between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. I 
think that he lawsuit has been lengthy and partially unjustified. I 
am a MAC user, but Microsoft has done wonderful things for our 
nation's IT sector and economy. Yes, their marketing tactics at 
times are a bit heavy handed, but three years of litigation is 
entirely too much to resolve this problem. Under the terms of the 
settlement, I do not think it is fair that Microsoft is being forced 
to document and disclose for use by its competitors interfaces 


[[Page 26720]]


and protocols that are internal to their Windows operating system 
products. This is technological information that Microsoft has spent 
lots of time and money to develop and it is a violation of their 
intellectual property rights to force them to give away their 
secrets. It also undermines any motivation to be innovative in a 
free market. I do agree with the concession that allows competitors 
to promote their own products. For instance, granting computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so that software 
developers can more easily promote their own products will serve to 
give competition the chance to succeed.
    Although the settlement is not perfect, it needs to become 
reality because our nation cannot afford further litigation. The IT 
sector and the economy need Microsoft at full strength. I urge your 
office to take a firm stance against the opposition to the 
settlement and make it a reality. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    John Osborn



MTC-00019438

From: Robert Dodier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, The proposed Microsoft settlement does nothing to resolve 
an extremely important problem: MS is not required to disclose the 
file formats for any of its applications. Lack of information about 
these file formats (e.g., the MS Word format) leaves developers of 
MS-compatible applications always playing ``catch up'' 
with MS; MS can, at will, break compatible software by changing the 
file formats. This puts developers of compatible software at a very 
great disadvantage compared to MS. The settlement should address 
this issue by requiring MS to disclose the file format used by each 
application, and to keep these disclosed formats up-to-date, by 
disclosing the file format used by any new product or new version of 
an existing product.
    Regards,
    Robert Dodier
    Boulder, CO
    Programmer



MTC-00019439

From: Dale Thorn
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can't believe you're softballing Microsoft the way you are. 
The way they default Windows 2000 etc. to REFUSE to allow people to 
install software if it's not ``OK'd by Microsoft'' is 
shameful. Oh, sure, you can ``get around it'' if you want 
to pay someone 5 times what it's worth to configure the stuff, but 
why bother? And that's just one example out of hundreds. If the U.S. 
Government doesn't get some ``real users'' of computers to 
see what Microsoft is doing first hand, and make their judgements 
from that perspective, then God help us all, because we're getting 
in deeper by the day.



MTC-00019440

From: Gabriel Sechan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a proffesional programmer, and as such have serious 
concerns about the proposed settlement and its effect upon my life 
and the future of the industry. To put it bluntly, letting Microsoft 
off with such a minor slap on the wrist is beyond bad and into the 
realm of gross negligence. Microsoft is a proven monopoly. The 
findings of fact show that they used their monopoly illegally to 
extend it to other areas. They have a history of doing this- they 
proudly call it ``embrace and extend''. Their illegal 
business tactics have destroyed the OS market, the browser market, 
the office software market, decimated the compiler market, and 
threaten many others.
    The only real solution is to force competition in the OS 
marketplace. Either force Microsoft to open source Windows and all 
APIs, or split Microsoft into pieces with contending OSes. If any 
other option is selected, we will only see these practices extended 
until Microsoft has crushed all the software markets.
    Sincerely,
    Gabriel Sechan
    14924 Avenida Venusto
    San Diego, California, 92128



MTC-00019441

From: Harold J. Lang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree about the settlement. MicroSoft is a destroyer of 
those who wish to provide a unique solution to programming that does 
not rely on a MS only provided API. They (MS) stifle those who have 
the veracity to show insight and vision for new and better 
applications.
    H. J. Lang



MTC-00019442

From: Hershberger, Doug (CD)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to register my objection to the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit.
    First, I believe that the settlement is too lenient. It does not 
adequately adress the issue of leveling the playing field for other 
companies who do not have the benefit of Microsoft's monopoly. It is 
a slap on the wrist and a rather tepid one at that.
    Second, I would like to specificaly take issue with one point 
raised by the proposed settlement. Quoting Robert Cringely's article 
on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong 
language against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says 
that it need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or 
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization 
to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: 
``* * * (c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, * * *''
    This is strictly unacceptable. access to APIs, documentation and 
communication protocols are essential for open source programmers, 
many of whom would not qualify as a business. There is no legitimate 
reason for this information to remain hidden. It only extends 
Microsoft's already stifling monopolizing stranglehold on the 
industry.
    Thank you for your time.
    Doug Hershberger
    Bioinformatics Specialist
    The Dow Chemical Company
    (858) 352-4515
    [email protected]



MTC-00019443

From: Chris Beggy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Hello. I'm writing to oppose the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department. My thoughts are best 
summed up by Dan Gillmor, business columnist for the San Jose 
Mercury News:
    ``The settlement not only doesn't doesn't even force the 
company to stop doing what eight federal judges found illegal, but 
it provides no penalty for the illegal acts. Locking in the ill-
gained profits of crime-bank robbers wish they could get such 
dispensation.''
    Regards.
    Chris Beggy



MTC-00019444

From: Robert C. Miller
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert C. Miller
1027 Celia Lane
Lexington, Ky 40504-2203
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.


[[Page 26721]]


    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert C. Miller



MTC-00019445

From: Richard T. Stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Please settle this affair with Microsoft ASAP. I believe that it 
is in the best interest of all involved, both our economy, the tech 
sector, as well as the individual citizen. I lend my support for 
this settlement, and I am hopeful that it may be resolved 
expediously.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Stephenson 806 Riverchase Blvd. Madison, TN 37115



MTC-00019446

From: dylan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i do not support the currently proposed settlement with 
microsoft. I think that microsoft has radically abused their 
monopoly position for far too long. I think they should be broken 
into 2 companies, one for software, one for operating systems. I 
also think they should have to pay a massive fine which would be 
used for supplying the nation's poorest schools with the hardware/
software of the schools'' choosing.
    Thank you for listening. fuck microsoft. please get them where 
it hurts. bad microsoft, bad!
    William Hassinger
    1013 Shadowoak Dr.
    Ballwin, MO 63021
    (314)401-0166
    [email protected]



MTC-00019447

From: Richard M Braun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft is a joke and 
Microsoft is the one lafing. I thought the law was clear on these 
matters? But the DOJ is not even following past precedence. And 
paying their debt to society with Microsoft products will do nothing 
more than expand their monopoly!!! What a joke.



MTC-00019448

From: eric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    this lets them off the hook for destroying IBM's OS/2 WARP 
(another pc os). this is NOT right!!!! eric weil 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019449

From: Audrey Trevino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:27pm
Subject: Oppose Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement with Microsoft corp. The 
judgment does not address the serious anti-competitive practices 
that Microsoft continues to employ.
    I believe Microsoft should be forced to allow other html 
rendering engines (browsers) to be integrated with all Windows 
operating environments. Microsoft can continue to assure the (albeit 
questionable) quality of their customer's experience by making 
available the Application Programming Interface (API) used to 
integrate Internet Explorer into Windows. In addition, I believe 
Microsoft's exclusive licensing practices with OEM computer 
manufacturers limits customer choice and has been the main limiting 
factor in the lack of further competition in the Operating System 
market.
    In conclusion, I believe that unless substantial revisions are 
made to the final judgment, Microsoft will continue to exercise its 
monopoly power to the detriment of the computer industry and 
consumers.
    Thank you.
    Steven C. Trevino
    BaccArts
    9710 Moraga
    San Antonio, TX 78217



MTC-00019450

From: phil hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I would like to record my opinion of the proposed final 
settlement in the DOJ v. Microsoft case. I disagree with the 
proposed final settlement, feeling it is too lenient on Microsoft. 
In particular, I feel that section E which says that Microsoft must 
disclose information to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, ``for 
the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System 
Product'', should be changed so that Microsoft must also be 
required to disclose informatino to them so they can create 
competing products. Competition is good.
    *** Philip Hunt ***
    [email protected] ***



MTC-00019451

From: Ep Dagger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Estep
116 Hillcrest Dr
Newburgh, IN 47630
23 January 2002
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I wish to make some comments on the proposed final judgment for 
USA versus Microsoft. I feel it does not provide enough open 
disclosure of Microsoft Windows and middleware APIs and File 
Formats, and also fails to provide any real penalty to Microsoft. I 
believe that requiring full public disclosure without any licensing 
terms of Microsoft Windows and middleware API and file formats would 
satisfy both of these concerns.
    Disclosure of APIs and File Formats should be with the intent to 
allow all software developers, private, public, and hobbyist, to 
interface to and create alternative code for the APIs. This should 
not just include the syntax specifications of the APIs and File 
Formats but should include semantic information about them. In order 
to ensure proper disclosure this document should be released with 
all internal and external beta software releases. Internal beta 
releases should allow comments from an internal Microsoft panel and 
external beta releases should allow for public comment. Both comment 
periods should be within the time frame for submiting bug reports 
for the beta software.
    I believe as punishment Microsoft should give up all 
intellectual property claims to these APIs and File formats. This 
would punish Microsoft by disallowing any revenues from licensing 
its intellectual property claims to these APIs and File Formats. 
Further I believe this form punishment is market neutral not taking 
or giving away market share to or from others.
    Paul Estep



MTC-00019452

From: Warren Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft as it stands is 
totally wrong. The company has been found guilty, even on appeal, of 
very serious crimes that have seriously affected the industry for 
many years. It's been found guilty in similar trials for similar 
behavior. It's punishment must now fit the crime or its past record 
shows it will continue it's practice of abusing market power to 
maintain its monopoly of the computer industry. Now it appears to be 
trying to dominate other industries. It's time to truly show 
Microsoft that it has acted outside the law and severely punish the 
company. Don't let them ``buy their way out of jail''.
    I have no connection with Microsoft or its competitors.
    regards
    warren jones



MTC-00019453

From: Joseph Krug
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Krug
6 Sealey Avenue Apt 5G
Hempstead, NY 11550-1230
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.


[[Page 26722]]


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



MTC-00019454

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-BAD news!
    The microsoft settlement proposed is a lousy idea..and poorly 
conceived. Please reconsider.
    d.erickson
    concerned citizen



MTC-00019455

From: Peter Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am OPPOSED to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.



MTC-00019456

From: Ann Brockinton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/23/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ann Brockinton
2532 BURCHARDT CT
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ann B. Brockinton



MTC-00019457

From: Patricia Mundahl
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/23/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Mundahl
6485 Fogelman Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Mundahl



MTC-00019458

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:37pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
Milton Haner
1208 48th Street SE
Everett, WA 98203-2900
January 19, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The suit dragged out long 
enough and it is time to allow Microsoft and the industry to move 
forward.
    The settlement was arrived at after extensive negotiations with 
a court-appointed mediator. The terms are fair: Microsoft actually 
agreed to terms that extend will beyond the products and procedures 
that were at issue in the suit, even going so far as to divulge some 
of its software code to other companies that will use it against 
Microsoft. It is time that the government accepts the settlement and 
allows Microsoft to return to concentrating on business.
    Microsoft has dealt with the government threatening to break up 
the company for over three years now. It is unfortunate that 
companies have to deal with such government over regulation. It is 
time for business to return to normal. Please accept the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement.
    I would like to add that my wife and I were so pleased with your 
appointment as Attorney General and let you know, we hold you in our 
prayers as you face all the decisions which are placed before you 
that God will give you continued direction and wisdom.
    We do not know of Bill Gates religious standing, but we do 
believe that God has blessed him, because of his generosity around 
the world and here in America, to help various organizations and the 
education system and encourage you to take this into consideration 
when you make your decision.
    Sincerely,
    Milton Haner
    Judith Haner



MTC-00019459

From: Solid Force
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00019460

From: Pat O'Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please rethink this settlement. Gate's defense is that Microsoft 
has allowed every aspect of the computer industry to substantially 
improve at reduced prices for everything from software to hardware. 
Yet Gate's fails to mention that while everything else improves at 
reduced prices, Microsoft gets bigger, slower, less secure and more 
expensive with every upgrade. (And an upgrade isn't even a new 
product!) That tells me that while every other area of the industry 
is in healthy competition, Microsoft can increase their prices and 
behave tyrannical unaffected without real competition. This 
settlement is a good ``deal'' for Microsoft, and a bad one 
for the consumer...



MTC-00019461

From: Scott Auerbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:32pm



[[Page 26723]]


Subject: Microsoft Settlement hardly just at Justice
    I can't even begin to describe how unsatisfactory the proposed 
settlement is. By now, you've heard all the complaints; I won't 
repeat them. Just adding my name to the list of disenfranchised 
Apple/Netscape/etc. users.
    Scott Auerbach
    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00019462

From: Naylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement. It is an 
injustice to ignore the past practices of Microsoft and to allow 
Microsoft to continue it's illegal business practices. A little less 
than one hundred years ago, our country faced a similar situation 
with monopolies. Please do what is right for the people of the 
United States.
    Sincerely,
    Robert K. Naylor 
    141 Bascom Rd
    Newport NH 03773



MTC-00019463

From: Jeff Sickel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I just wanted it on record that as a business owner of a small 
software consulting firm in the state of Illinois, I disagree with 
the current Proposed Final Judgment of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION and believe that the judgment is too weak 
to truly be enforced or effective.
    Sadly the Attorney General of Illinois has also shown too eager 
an attempt to settle in a case where clearly the plaintiff would 
have been able to enforce a more ridged judgment against a 
corporation that has proven time and again that it will ignore or 
blatantly rebuff legal actions against it while still using it's 
monopoly to eliminate any true competition. This is a bad precedent 
to set for large and small businesses in this country. Especially in 
a time of economic crises. Please pursue corrections to the final 
judgment that will make this case just instead of just blessing 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    Regards,
    Jeff Sickel
    Corpus Callosum Corporation
    586 Sheridan Sq. #3
    Evanston, IL 60202-4757
    Tel. 847.328.7363
    Fax. 847.328.7364



MTC-00019464

From: Steven Snover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been reading over the proposed settlement documentation 
concerning he Microsoft anti-trust case. There are still FAR TOO 
MANY LOOPHOLES for Microsoft to continue business as usual. THIS 
SETTLEMENT MUST BE REWORKED or Microsoft will simply be able to 
continue in it's activities. There licensing agreements for one, 
scream monopoly. You can't seriously let them continue to tell end 
users what other software types are not allowed to be used in 
conjunction with Microsoft software. There are licenses written by 
Microsoft that prohibit use and distribution of their software with 
any other type of software based solely on license alone. There is 
NO GOOD REASON for denying an entire license to an end user.



MTC-00019465

From: Albert Ren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:34pm
Subject: Antitrust
    Please do not allow the antitrust settlement to pass, this 
settlement does not help the consumers, Microsoft's competitors, or 
anyone else other than Microsoft. Consumers get continued lack of 
choice because Microsoft gets off the hook easily, and is then 
allowed to continue the same practices that it has been doing for a 
long time now. Competitors do not get any assistance because this is 
only a slap on the wrist for Microsoft so they will continue to be 
hurt by anticompetitive practices. In addition, the settlement 
allows Microsoft to provide software to education in terms of its 
``value'' not its actual cost to Microsoft. So Microsoft 
gets to count a $499 Windows XP Professional full disk as its retail 
value and not the pennies it costs to actually make; this is not 
hard for Microsoft to do.
    The settlement does not address the original problem: Will 
Microsoft stop commingling of software? Originally, with Internet 
Explorer, Microsoft managed to crush the competition by merging it 
with Windows 98 and subsequent versions, and then manipulating 
manufacturers to prevent the competitor from getting desktop access. 
In Windows XP Microsoft has gone farther, by integrating components 
from all sorts of uses, the most prominent being Windows Messenger, 
which Microsoft again claims, is not removable from the system. But 
when they said the same thing about IE, they produced a fabricated 
video of attempts to remove it. Can this company really be trusted?
    About the education component of the settlement, where Microsoft 
will provide free software, this is nothing more than a blatant 
effort to try and monopolize the education industry, one where Apple 
currently dominates. As discussed before, Microsoft's retail value 
of software is much higher than its actual cost, so about a $1 
billion of software probably only cost them $100,000. Microsoft has 
been looking to get in the education market for a while, and this is 
nothing more than government sanctioned monopolizing.
    The settlement is too weak and too loose to prevent Microsoft 
from doing anything ever again. In fact, Microsoft has stepped up 
its efforts by commingling Windows Messenger to attack AOL's IM 
solutions and .NET to dominate the Internet itself. We cannot allow 
this to happen.
    Albert



MTC-00019466

From: Dominic Eldridge
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to encourage the Department of Justice to take a 
tougher stance towards Microsoft's attempts to avoid any meaningful 
punishment. The settlement ordered by Judge Kollar-Kelly after the 
court ruled against Microsoft was an aberration within the United 
States Judicial System. Microsoft has been declared an illegal 
monopoly and to this day continues it's ruthless and predatory 
practices. Yet nine States of The Union have crumbled to Microsoft's 
demands on how the company feels it should be 
``punished''. The few concessions Microsoft has made are 
riddled with loopholes, some of which may actually help the company 
increase the viciousness of it's licensing schemes. The three member 
panel designated to watch over Microsoft is in part composed of one 
person Microsoft has appointed. This panelist will co-decide who the 
third panelist will be. This is clearly no different than protecting 
sheep by placing wolves at the fence gate. And if Microsoft violates 
these meager restrictions? The penalty will be extended for another 
two years. That is to say, they will be allowed to continue to break 
the rules for another two years with no repercussions.
    Please put an end to this sham of a solution. Call for Judge 
Kollar-Kelly to reinstate Judge Jackson's ruling that the company 
should be broken into two parts. If at all possible, single out 
those figureheads responsible for Microsoft's illegal behavior and 
ask the court to hold those individuals responsible for their 
actions. It's a shame that upper management of these companies are 
never punished directly. By permanently removing them from the 
company and replacing them with employees from below, the courts 
could avoid having to slap the company on the wrist many times over, 
as it has already done with Microsoft. Nothing changed then. Nothing 
will change now if harsh penalties are not enacted-and the world 
will have been shown once more that in America, laws are only limits 
for those with shallow pockets.
    Dominic Eldridge
    [This letter has also been mailed via traditional mail to Renata 
B. Hesse at the U.S. Department of Justice.]



MTC-00019467

From: kanjc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:31pm
Subject: anti-trust
    I just thougth I would say that these anti-trust suits against 
microsoft seem to be nothing more than inferior company's whining 
because they have produced products that are less user friendly, 
more expensive and generally less desireable than those made by 
Microsoft. I personally don't Microsoft products because I have to, 
I use them because I like them.
    Kanjc
    [email protected]
    www.kanjc.com



[[Page 26724]]


MTC-00019468

From: J. Ross Burwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    In my judgement, it is in the best interest of our country, the 
economy and all human beings that the Microsoft settlement come to a 
conclusion. It is absurd that a reasonable settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the DOJ continues to be interrupted by States 
and lawsuits that seek an advantage for constituents who are largely 
competitors of Microsoft. Now, AOL Time Warner has chosen to bring a 
lawsuit clearly designed to impede and slow down the settlement 
process. When will it end?
    J. Ross Burwell, CPA
    Burwell & Wolfe Inc PS
    734 East First Street, Suite A
    Port Angeles, WA 98362
    360 452-1500
    www.bw-cpa.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00019469

From: David Santin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom This May Concern-
    My name is David Santin. I am a sophomore Computer Science major 
at Rutgers University, and have been compelled to participate in the 
public response to the Microsoft/Department of Justice antitrust 
settlement because I see it failing in its intended purpose. An 
antitrust settlement should be designed to censure a corporation for 
its anticompetitive actions while preventing those actions from 
occurring in the future. I believe that the settlement, as it 
stands, fulfills neither of those points satisfactorily.
    As a future programmer and IT specialist, the stranglehold that 
Microsoft exerts on the computer industry as a whole is frightening. 
It is currently unfeasable for a corporation to market an operating 
system to directly compete with Microsoft's Windows line of 
operating systems. The closest competitors, Apple Computer and the 
open-source Linux operating systems, are still a miniscule fraction 
of the share Microsoft commands. The issue is that Microsoft has 
been allowed to crush competition repeatedly during its history, and 
has taken every advantage to do so. But if Microsoft made a superior 
product, then possibly an argument could be made for allowing this 
antitrust settlement to stand. But the simple fact is that 
Microsoft's operating system has many deep-seated flaws contained 
within, the most telling and dangerous of which is its utter lack of 
security.
    Almost every week an advisory is released which documents a flaw 
or security weakness in a Microsoft-related product. Microsoft's 
operating system market share has increased in the past few years, 
but correspondingly, so have the amount of virii and security 
bulletins. Is this a coincidence? Not at all. Microsoft's complete 
and total disregard for safeguarding its users has been shown time 
and time again. The most frightening part about this is that 
Microsoft, if allowed to continually strangle the computer industry, 
will control more and more computers, but make them less secure in 
the process. Even the US government has been advised not to use 
Microsoft's operating system, because of its inherent security 
weaknesses. I believe that only a full disclosure of ALL software 
APIs will make Windows a more secure operating system. Microsoft has 
shown time and time again that, if left to their own devices, they 
do not care about security.
    Sirs and madams, I hope you see how deleterious Microsoft has 
been to computer security and competition, and how this can only get 
worse in the future. I urge you to reject this settlement for one 
which forces Microsoft to both loosen its grip on the computer 
industry and make its flagship product, Windows, more secure. 
Anything less will expose this country to far worse security 
problems than we have seen to date. Thank you very much for your 
time.
    Sincerely,
    David Santin
    [email protected]



MTC-00019470

From: Elliott Eggleston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:31pm
Subject: Tunney Act
    I deplore the kid gloves with which the Tunney act treats 
Microsoft. In my view, the world is dominated by big business and by 
government. As our representatives, I expect members of the 
government to protect the consumer from the whims of the 
monopolists. Forced upgrade cycles, certification scams, reduced 
expectations for privacy and security and loss of control of 
personal property are just a few of the reasons we need to reign in 
Bill Gates and his cronies.
    Sincerely,
    -Elliott Eggleston
    39 Jackson St.
    Cambridge, MA 02140



MTC-00019471

From: Mike Lunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Count this one against the settlement ``411. Many of the 
tactics that Microsoft has employed have also harmed consumers 
indirectly by unjustifiably distorting competition.'' from 
finding of Facts.
    Not only has Microsoft behaved this way in the past, they have 
not changed. Their current business practices continue to cause harm 
on a daily basis. Microsoft continues to expose the market to 
unreasonable risk (look at the holes in the most recent version XP). 
As a web developer utilizing linux as a server I see this first 
hand. My servers get hit every day by infected Microsoft servers 
attempting to infect them. Without real competition you must pity 
the casual user that sits at home with his/her computer fully 
vulnerable to attack with basically no other choice. Not only, that 
the lost caused by this (billions in the case of the Code Red Virus) 
is not the responsibility of MicroSoft.
    So, if you let them be, hold them responsible for their actions 
and products. Let them have same level of responsibility for their 
product that Ford has.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Lunn
    [email protected]



MTC-00019472

From: Eric Ellsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to inform you of my strong opposition to the 
current terms of the Proposed Final Judgement against Microsoft. It 
lacks the necessary clarity of language and completeness of remedy 
to prevent Microsoft from continuing to abuse its monopoly.
    Of particular concern to me are the following:
    -Language permitting Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs 
who include other operating systems, and do or do not choose to 
license Windows. This kind of retaliation would be meaningless 
unless Microsoft controlled the OS market, and is an abuse of 
MS'' monopoly. Such retaliation should be forbidden explicitly 
in the judgement.
    -The settlement includes no remedy for Microsoft's 
practice of partially publishing APIs. As these APIs are 
undocumented, or worse classified as trade secrets, Microsoft 
leverages its position as the OS maker to modify APIs, frequently 
making it impossible for competitors to bring a competing product to 
market. In order to have any semblance of a competitive market, the 
APIs must be clearly documented. This requires direct oversight, 
rather than continued promises of good behavior. The settlement 
fails to require Microsoft to fully and comprehensibly disclose ALL 
its APIs to other software vendors, including those for .Net 
softwar, and thus is extremely limited.
    As computers are becoming an increasingly important way the 
American citizenry gets information and conducts its business, it is 
vital that the market for software and services remain competitive.
    Please do not accept the settlement as it stands, for it does 
not address Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Ellsworth
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00019473

From: Max Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am opposed to the settlement with Microsoft. As they have been 
found guilty of illegal behaviour in the past, and it is quite clear 
that this behaviour is continuing to this day, I believe that a 
remedy and punishment should be imposed on the company, NOT 
negotiated. I am worried that Microsoft's slick lawyers will get 
them a position where they can continue to abuse their monopoly 
position and stifle innovation.
    The year is 2002. Yet we still have to put up with crashes and 
freezes every day and 


[[Page 26725]]


we have holes all over the place which risk 
our security and privacy. Microsoft have NEVER innovated. They 
merely copy other people's innovation from which it stalls. Windows 
was not invented by MS, Instant messaging wasn't invented by MS, web 
browsing, streaming audio/video etc etc all weren't invetned by MS, 
yet through its monopoly position it now controls and owns these 
technologies, and they stall.
    It is 2002, we should be doing amazing things with our software, 
yet we are stuck with buggy, bloated, software which treats us as if 
we are all stupid. Hardware, where the market is more competitive 
has improved out of site, yet software stagnates as soon as 
Microsoft illegally closes the market down! The DoJ must stop this.
    I don't really care much that MS has stolen profits from other 
companies. What I DO Care deeply about is the fact that through 
their greed the possibilties for technological advancement, and the 
social and cultural advancement which it may provide, is severely 
stunted. The few millions of dollars that MS might contribute to 
political campaigns or lobbyists PALES in comparison to the damage 
done to the possibilities for human advancement. We sent people to 
the moon in 1969, yet my computer can't stay stable for one work 
day! There is clearly something wrong.
    I would like the DoJ to break up microsoft into separate pieces.
    1) O/S business
    2) Business application business
    3) Web related business (browser, media player)
    4) Server etc business
    Futher more I would like truely independent monitors to watch 
these baby MS to make sure they aren't coluding or conspiring.
    A massive fine should be imposed on MS, and especially the 
directors who were personally in charge of making the decisions to 
act illegally. The money from this massive fine (I'm thinking many 
billions) should be used for the following activties:
    1) set up free servers and bandwidth for Free software, Open 
Source software and public domain projects, to colloberate and 
distribute their products.
    2) a fund should be set up to provide grants to interesting 
software projects (which won't necessarily make money) and 
distributed by an independent government authority.
    3) computers, bandwidth, and training should be given to those 
in the poorest areas and to less developed countries overseas.
    I would also like to see William Gates and fellow senior 
managers to some serious jail time. Too often small time crooks, or 
drug users are sent to jail for awfully long periods, while the 
white collar corporate crooks who waste and steal billions of 
dollars and destroy redundant workers lives (e.g. ENRON) get off 
with a slap on the wrist. So lets get it right and ensure the 
perpetrators of these illegal acts are sent to jail.
    Thank You for reading my submission,
    Max Phillips



MTC-00019474

From: brian bertsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms is using their leverage to prevent OEMs from putting BeOS, a 
promising new technology OS, into store-bought computers by 
controlling the boot process. Consumers were not able to even see it 
operate. They created a high barrier to entry for the new OS.
    Open the boot record to allow OEMs to offer dual boot computers. 
I mean windows / OS2, or windows / BeOS, Windows Linux, or any other 
combination. Anything else is monopolistic discrimination. It is bad 
business to go single-source for a product!
    Brian Bertsch
    Irvine, CA



MTC-00019475

From: Noah Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    As the target of much well-reasoned (and much poorly-reasoned) 
commentary on the DoJ's antitrust settlement with Microsoft, I'm 
sure you've heard a great deal about the technical merits of the 
settlement and its specific language. I'd like to reiterate a couple 
of those key points again, and state my support for the viewpoint 
that the proposed settlement neither fully addresses Microsoft's 
criminal behavior nor discourages them from continuing it.
    First point: lack of requirement of action. The settlement says 
a number of things which Microsoft ``must'' reveal, any of 
which may be easily slipped around by claiming that those protocols 
must stay secret for the integrity of Windows, and none of which 
must be revealed to anyone other than competing 
corporations-not, for instance, hobbyist programmers like 
myself who write Open Source software nor to the public at large.
    Second point: lack of penalties. Penalties for MS's failure to 
respect this settlement are not spelled out. Given MS's long history 
of ignoring such court mandates, the lack of such penalties (other 
than extending the period for which they ignore them) is ludicrously 
negligent. We all know they'll break the agreement if they feel it's 
in their best interests, so the question is ``what will happen 
to them when they do?'' That question remains unanswered.
    Third point: lack of scope. The settlement addresses some (but 
not all) of the points addressed by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's 
original judgement, but leaves out a number of them that he didn't 
cover properly. The simplest one, the one that proves their 
maintenance of monopoly and badly hurts OEMs and consumers, is their 
contract clauses preventing OEMs from shipping machines with 
multiple operating systems preinstalled and bootable (``dual-
boot'' or ``multi-boot'' machines). This is active 
maintenance of their monopoly, and prevents consumers from being 
able to buy machines with non-MS operating systems -even if 
they are willing to buy an MS OS as well-. If there is any 
question of whether the OEMs can simply find no other operating 
system to include, look at operating systems like Linux or BeOS 
which were offered to them freely. In the current market, given OEMs 
incredible pressure to differentiate themselves in any way, why have 
essentially no dual-boot systems come to market? Why does no major 
OEM offer, for instance, a machine preloaded with Linux? Why does no 
major manufacturer offer a machine with no operating system at all, 
allowing consumers not to pay MS? MS's licensing practices support 
their monopoly most directly, and have gone essentially unaddressed. 
As a consumer, I feel both deeply disappointed and betrayed that the 
US Government initiated and concluded these proceedings without a 
very serious look into these deplorable practices.
    Until Microsoft is restricted from controlling standards, 
killing those it does not control, true innovation will remain 
shackled. Until Microsoft has competitors, Operating Systems in 
current use will always be insecure, as Microsoft's internal 
processes guarantee. While Microsoft can leverage its Operating 
System monopoly to kill products in competing fields (handheld 
computers, web browsers, application software, home entertainment, 
video game consoles) this contagion will spread. We have seen the 
results of Microsoft working without competition, as Microsoft 
Office in modern days demonstrates, or Windows 3.1, NT, 95 and 
98-prior to the rise of Linux. It is too early to give up on 
the information revolution, and so it is too early to let Microsoft 
run unfettered, destroying the technology industry that gave birth 
to it, as it has demonstrated every intention to do.



MTC-00019476

From: Garrett Arch Blythe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft makes products integral to my job as a software 
engineer. I do not believe Microsoft should make products which 
eliminate the need for me as an innovating software engineer. I was 
the lead software engineer for Netscape Navigator for MS-Windows.
    garrett



MTC-00019477

From: pothiers@cepheus. azstarnet.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. It does not 
protect OEMS against retaliation when they ship PCs with competing 
operating systems. This puts undo preasure on OEMS to do the WRONG 
THING; namely reduce consumer choices. As a consumer, I've come face 
to face with this limitation when purchasing computer equipment for 
my business. My choices were artificially limited by Microsoft 
practices and the settlement does nothing to improve things.
    Steven Pothier
    Tucson, Az
    Senior Scientist
    Member of the Association of Computing Machinery



[[Page 26726]]


    Software engineer for 19 years



MTC-00019478

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to state my opinion that the 
``penalties'' that Microsoft faces currently are hardly a 
slap on the wrist. Microsoft should be split into two different 
companies. By not doing this they will still have the inside design 
advantage for their software. Hopefully this would keep them from 
executing their past illegal practices in play. They go to a 
computer maker or software distributor and say ``Sell only my 
products or you don't get the discount''. The loss of a 
discount could make a company uncompetitive price wise or make them 
operate at a loss which makes their long term operations harder to 
manage. This type of behavior is extortion. Sell my products only or 
we'll destroy your company. If this type of thing happened on the 
docks, we would call it racketeering and Microsoft the Mafia.
    Do not allow this phony penalties to stand. Don't fall for the 
``what's good for Microsoft is good for the country'' 
talk. Predatory monopolies that behave the way Microsoft does is not 
good for anyone except Microsoft.
    These opinions are mine alone and are not associated with my 
employer in any way.
    Jeff Cleverley
    Unix system administrator



MTC-00019479

From: Brendan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think several billion dollars worth of top shelf shares in the 
company should be given to needy schools and hospitals, so that they 
may profit financially from Microsoft's monopoly onwards into the 
future just as microsoft will profit from their ill gotten monopoly 
onwards intot the future.
    give out several billion dollars worth of MS shares to needy 
community organisations.



MTC-00019480

From: Richard.Hibling@ au.nestle.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1) Microsoft DOES NOT provide value for money in it's operating 
system products. It charges way too much for a product that is not 
stable enough to be reliable.
    I have to use Windows for such products as Photoshop and 
Acrobat. If the operating system was free like Linux and open 
source-it would be made much more stable by the world full of 
developers who like windows and want to use it. Then Microsoft could 
sell their products (Word, Excel etc) which would run just as well 
on Windows but would be stable and reliable (and a whole lot more 
secure and speedier once the ``dodgy'' code was 
eliminated.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't ``hate'' Microsoft and 
``love'' Linux-I ``dislike'' Microsoft 
because I cannot depend on Windows as an operating system whereas I 
can depend on Linux-unfortunately because of the Microsoft 
monopoly many manufacturers do not want to port their products to 
Linux. So I am stuck with Windows whether I like it or not-and 
I don't.
    Until MS can be slapped into shape this situation will continue 
unless MS is slapped so hard that manufacturers decide to port to 
Linux-if that happens MS will die.
    Regards,
    Richard Hibling
    Oracle DBA
    Nestli Australia Limited
    Tel: +61 (2) 9352 5642



MTC-00019481

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my concern that the current Microsoft 
settlement proposal is little more than a slap on the wrist and will 
not accomplish its goals of rectifying the monopoly abuses that MS 
has been found guilty of. Specifically, the Proposed Final Judgment 
allows many exclusionary practices to continue, and does not take 
any direct measures to reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry 
faced by new entrants to the market.
    Michael Messano
    [email protected]



MTC-00019482

From: Cornel Huth-40th Floor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 6402 INGRAM RD SAN ANTONIO TX 78238
    Microsoft was found, in the narrow scope of the way-too long 
trial, to be guilty of serious violations of law. It is my opinion 
that if Microsoft is let off, it will continue to do, as it has 
shown before that it -will- do, what it was found guilty 
of doing. What purpose does it serve to let Microsoft off? None to 
the consumer, that's for sure, and everything to Microsoft. Which, 
exactly, was found guilty? Microsoft for being an illegal monopoly, 
or the DOJ for taking this (very narrow case) to trial? Punishment 
is what is required, not a pat on the back and a wink of the eye.
    Sincerely,
    Cornel Huth
    http://40th.com/mail.html



MTC-00019483

From: John McDermott
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    John McDermott
    PO Box 30156
    Long Beach, Ca 90853
    January 23, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views. This 
frivoulous lawsuit probably cost investors millions more than the 
Enron fiasco caused, and there was no government intervention there. 
Keep the government out of private business.
    Sincerely,
    John R. McDermott



MTC-00019484

From: Jonathan Weeks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement offers of late on the Microsoft trial are:
    laughably inadequate to protect the consumer's interest
    a miscarriage of justice given Microsoft has been found guilty
    will only serve to harm consumers going forward
    will set a terrible precedent for the children of America about
    the rule of law and consequences of playing dirty
    Please do the right thing and consider the morality of the case 
foremost over the incredible corrupting power Microsoft represents, 
and come up with a punishment more in line with the crime(s).
    Thank you,
    Jonathan Weeks



MTC-00019485

From: Kathy Kasza
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 8:39pm
Subject: Tunney Act Comments
    re: Tunney Act Comments
    To whom it may concern,
    I can't believe that after finding Microsoft guilty, the 
government will ``settle'' on such poor terms.
    At the very lest, Microsoft needs to be heavily 
``fined'' in real dollars. ('fined': all their illegal 
profits taken away) Better yet, dismember Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Katherine Kasza
    328 W 5th St
    San Dimas CA 91773


[[Page 26727]]




MTC-00019486

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A recent article in the San Jose Mercury News said: Nine states 
are still pursuing a remedy that means something. At the same time, 
a federal judge will decide whether the settlement offered by the 
Bush administration and other states was in the public interest.
    The judge will be reading public comments, required by law, on 
that question. You can still send an e-mail, with ``Microsoft 
Settlement'' in the subject line, to 
[email protected] I'm just writing in to say that I 
think the proposed settlement is too weak. I'm on the side of the 
nine states pursuing stricter remedies. Microsoft has been at this 
monopoly thing way too long with insufficient government 
restrictions. Often government restrictions are bad, but not in the 
case of a powerful monopolist like Microsoft.
    Alan Oppenheimer, President
    Open Door Networks, Inc.
    Internet solutions as easy to use as the Macintosh itself
    [email protected]
    http://www.opendoor.com



MTC-00019487

From: Paul Gabriele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Reprinted with permission of the original author: Brian Koppe, 
Buffalo Grove, IL]
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. It is my understanding that the purpose of the 
Proposed Final Judgement should be to reduce, as much as possible, 
the Applications Barrier to Entry. In other words, make the market 
more open to competition from other products. After reading the 
Proposed Final Judgement and multiple essays on its problems and 
benefits, I have noticed many things that I take issue with. 
However, I'd like to focus on one in particular. This problem is in 
the issue of Microsoft End User License Agreements (EULA).
    It has been shown that Microsoft creates EULA's that place 
anticompetitive restrictions on the user, and that Microsoft has 
intentionally created incompatibilities to keep users from using 
Windows applications on compatible operating systems that are not 
Windows. One example of this is in the license agreement for the 
Microsoft software, NewsAlert- offered by MSNBC. In that 
license it says, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to 
install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers 
running validly licensed copies of the operating system for which 
the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; 
Microsoft Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. 
...'' Users of competing operating systems, such as Linux, 
which are capable of running some Windows applications are not 
legally capable, under this restrictive license, to use this 
program. One suggestion as to how restrictive licenses such as this 
should be forced to be changed is for the excerpt above to be re-
written as follows:
    ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating 
system.''
    In the past, it has been shown that Microsoft places technical 
barriers on competition as well. The 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft case 
shows how Microsoft added code to its product so that, when run on a 
competing operating system (DR-DOS in this case), it would give the 
user an error. As I'm sure you can easily look up, the judge ruled 
that ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.''
    Unfortunately, with the Proposed Final Judgement as it stands, 
there is no language to prohibit these restrictive licenses nor is 
there language to prohibit future intentional incompatabilities. 
Therefore, in its current state, the Proposed Final Judgement 
assists Microsoft in continuing these actions and does not succeed 
in opening the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    In closing, I would like to add my support for Dan Kegel's 
essay, ``On the Proposed Final Judgement in United States v 
Microsoft,'' located at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html, which is the source of the facts I have included in 
this letter. I would also like to add my support for his suggested 
amendments to the Proposed Final Judgement, which are described near 
the end of his essay, and to the alternate settlement proposed by 
some of the plaintif states and located on the website for the 
National Association of Attorneys General at http://www.naag.org/
features/microsoft/ ms-remedy-filing.pdf.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Gabriele
    Chicago, IL



MTC-00019488

From: Jack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    The Microsoft settlement is a very, very bad idea. MS should be 
punished, not rewarded, for monopolistic behavior.
    Jack Dunn



MTC-00019489

From: Triple (q)T(q) Ranch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this message in response to the latest boondoggle 
by AOL, Netscape and other parties involved in the latest filing of 
a lawsuit against Microsoft. While I am not the biggest fan of the 
Redman bunch, I believe in giving credit where it is due. Microsoft 
is largely responsible for the technology growth in this nation and 
the world. As the Technology Director for a small school district in 
East Texas, I find these continued attacks disturbing. It will do 
nothing but drive up the cost of software, and delay developments 
that education could find useful. Netscape and AOL should be 
publicly chastened for continued attacks. AOL has little room to 
talk as they have systematically wiped out other ISP's of there kind 
(thankfully). AOL's product is flawed, full of viruses, and their 
business practices are less than desirable. In my opinion, the DOJ 
and Microsoft need to settle this fiasco, tell AOL and others to 
quit crying and develop a better mousetrap and get on with the 
business at hand.
    Werner Burwood



MTC-00019490

From: Patrick Greenwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a long-time technologist and small business owner, I am 
adamantly opposed to the proposed final judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft. The first glaring problem with the proposed judgment is 
that there are no punitive penalties related to Microsoft's'' 
past illegal, and anti-competitive behavior. Rather it attempts to 
simply modify their behavior in the future. Microsoft is directly 
and indirectly responsible for putting countless businesses and 
individuals out of work through their illegal actions. They should 
be made to pay for their past misdeeds rather than simply promising 
``not to do it again.''
    Second, as someone with over 15 years in the computer industry, 
the proposal as written is rife with countless examples of 
conditions, loopholes, and exceptions that aid Microsoft to the 
point of rendering this agreement as written nearly worthless.
    These include:
    III.c.3 forces organizations wishing to run a post-boot middle-
ware product to either display no user interface, or one that is 
consistent with Microsoft's own interface. This clause significantly 
hinders other parties ability to determine look, feel, and to 
provide additional functionality which requires a different 
interface.
    The unwritten requirements in III.D ``Microsoft shall 
disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose 
of inter-operating 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 Middle-ware to inter-operate with a Windows Operating 
System Product.'' What this language illustrates is that in 
order to gain access to interoperability information, one would have 
to have a business relationship with Microsoft as an ISV, IHV, IAP, 
ICP or OEM which would undoubtedly be tied to a separate lengthly 
and restrictive licensing agreement.
    Interoperability information should be freely available to 
anyone who wishes it. A business relationship with Microsoft should 
not be required in order to determine how to make ones software work 
with their software.
    Section III.G.1 states that ``Microsoft shall not enter 
into any agreement with any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants 
Consideration on the condition that such entity distributes, 
promotes, uses, or supports, exclusively or in a fixed percentage, 
any Microsoft Platform Software, 


[[Page 26728]]


except that Microsoft may enter 
into agreements in which such an entity agrees to distribute, 
promote, use or support Microsoft Platform Software in a fixed 
percentage whenever Microsoft in good faith obtains a representation 
that it is commercially practicable for the entity to provide equal 
or greater distribution, promotion, use or support for software that 
competes with Microsoft Platform Software,''
    This clause does absolutely nothing to aid anyone other than 
Microsoft. It allows Microsoft to contravene the intent of earlier 
sections which were aimed at preventing Microsoft from punishing 
their partners who chose to use other parties software. Instead of 
being punished, Microsoft is simply enabled to ``reward'' 
those who ``distributes, promotes, uses, or support'' 
Microsoft Platform Software at any fixed percentage they wish(100% 
is a percentage for example.) By ``rewarding'' partners 
that use all Microsoft products Microsoft can continue to make it 
financially unrealistic for manufacturers in the highly-competitive 
industry to not use Microsoft products and forego the 
``rewards'' that Microsoft provides.
    III.H.2 allows Microsoft to require confirmation for 
installation of Non-Microsoft middle-ware. What it does not do is 
state the nature of the confirmation(is it a one step process, a ten 
step process, etc.) nor does it offer any guidance as to the 
language to be used. As written, this clause would allow Microsoft 
to require a twenty-step process with language that reads 
``WARNING replacing this software could seriously damage your 
operating system or machine'' throughout in order to replace 
Microsoft middle-ware.
    III.J.1 offers an exemption from disclosure of any APIs or 
documentation that 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''
    One of the ways in which Microsoft could avoid disclosure of 
large amounts of data would be to simply make the claim that 
disclosure would ``compromise security'' any time they did 
not wish to disclose something and then utilize their innumerable 
resources to press those claims. Further, there are already products 
that exist which require knowledge of Microsoft authentication 
mechanisms, namely SAMBA(http://www.samba.org). This clause as 
written would actually allow Microsoft to put this project out of 
business by denying them access to information.
    Third, Section IV.B borders on the ludicrous. What is being 
agreed to is that Microsoft, convicted of multiple illegal acts, 
gets a 50% say in choosing who is appointed to determine if they are 
perpetrating additional crimes from a technical perspective.
    Microsoft should have absolutely zero say in who is appointed to 
judge their compliance, just as I would not be able to choose a 
particular judge if I were accused of committing a crime.
    Were this not bad enough, IV.B.d renders the Technical 
Compliance Committee worthless by prohibiting the admission of their 
work or finding in enforcement proceeding for any reason, and 
forbidding them to testify on any matter related to the judgment.
    As written this proposed cure does nothing to address 
Microsoft's'' past misdeeds, offer little if any protection to 
consumers, and allows Microsoft to continue to perpetrate many of 
the crimes it has been found guilty of.
    For all of the reasons outlined above, I urge you to reject this 
proposal outright, or at a minimum require significant modification.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Greenwell



MTC-00019492

From: Peter Brumblay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever it may concern,
    A recent post on slashdot.org alerted me to the fact that I have 
a small ability to complain about the Microsoft Settlement. I have 
been an employed software developer for the past two and a half 
years, and have been an avid computer user for the past sixteen. 
Throughout this time, I have had first-hand experience with many of 
Microsoft's software products, including their operating systems.
    A very interesting comparison has been made by Scott Rosenberg 
in an article at Salon.com (text here:http://www.salon.com/tech/col/
rose/2002/01/16/competition/index.html) to the PC CPU market. In 
short, AMD's relatively recent entrance into the higher-end PC 
market has fueled a fiery competition between Intel and AMD. This 
competition has allowed consumers to purchase excellent products at 
much lower prices than comparable products in the mid-90s. I am 
particularly pleased with this competition, as I upgrade my computer 
about once every two years. The article then describes the horrible 
lack of competition in the operating system market, and how 
Microsoft's partially disclosed APIs prevent other operating systems 
from being competitive. If the majority of quality commercial 
software only runs on Microsoft operating systems, then how are 
other operating systems supposed to compete?
    The secret to the competitiveness in the chip market is the 
fully disclosed machine language that the chips understand. AMD 
chips and Intel chips can read the same computer code at the 
hardware level and are therefor able to run the same software. If 
Microsoft were required to fully disclose the Win32 API, and the 
APIs (and file formats) of the products that it uses to retain its 
monopolistic leverage in the market (Microsoft Office, for example), 
other operating systems (Linux, FreeBSD, MacOSX) would be able to 
compete much more readily, because they would be able to run the 
same applications that the Microsoft applications can.
    As outlined in Dan Kegel's essay, the provisions in the 
settlement do not require Microsoft to fully disclose their APIs and 
offer them many loopholes to remain anti-competitive. (Essay's text 
here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), thus dooming Linux, 
FreeBSD, et. al. developers to the laborious task of catch-up 
through reverse-engineering.
    I sincerely hope that a change can be made to this Settlement to 
give me a choice in the future as to which operating system I run, 
and which operating system I develop for. The current Settlement is 
grossly inadequate, and currently I forsee a future where I will be 
forced to write code for Microsoft products, lest I move to a 
different profession.
    I want a choice.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Brumblay
    2718 Moorhead Ave. #207
    Boulder, CO 80305



MTC-00019493

From: Todd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that Microsoft is not being properly punished or limited 
in the future from continuing its unlawful activities. What must 
stop is the bullying of PC vendors into selling exclusively Windows 
PCs with a certain desktop setup, or no Windows at all. It 
unlawfully hurts the consumer and the economy, when nobody is 
allowed to buy an alternative product until after Windows and its 
browser have already been forced upon them.
    Todd Hutchinson
    age 26
    Portland, Oregon



MTC-00019494

From: Cullen Newsom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Persons,
    I am displeased at the way the Department of Justice has handled 
the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    I support stronger sanctions against Microsoft Corporation.
    Cullen Newsom
    University of Houston High Energy Physics
    4800 Calhoun Road #632 Science Research One
    Houston, Texas, USA 77004
    [email protected] 



MTC-00019495

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the settlement. I've been in the personal computer 
market since the beginning; first as a consumer, later as a 
developer and independent contractor.
    A few points:
    It is an outright lie that Internet Explorer 
(``MSIE'') can't, as a matter of principle, be removed 
from Windows. It does not take a software expert to appreciate this: 
consider only that MSIE also runs on the Macintosh. Or, remember 
that MSIE is derived from a browser originally developed by 
Spyglass. Or, that MSIE was a separate product for Windows until 
Windows95. Of course it is possible to construct MSIE and Windows 



[[Page 26729]]


such that removing the former will break the latter, but that's no 
different than using glue instead of a nut & bolt to hold a pair 
of items together.
    Microsoft is NOT an innovator. They have invented almost 
nothing, and purchased or copied nearly everything. If Microsoft's 
behavior had been even a little less rapacious, the following 
outcome would have been likely:
    more competition, since companies (and investors) would not 
avoid markets that Microsoft targets
    higher growth in the computer industry
    more innovation
    lower prices
    Microsoft has lowered the market price of some high-end items, 
though vigorous non-Microsoft competition is likely to have achieved 
the same result.
    Microsoft has RAISED the price of their monopoly items, e.g. 
look at the relative cost of Windows and Microsoft Office vs. PC 
hardware.
    Microsoft's products are, in general, poorly designed and have 
many serious bugs. Open competition would have yielded higher 
quality products, ultimately leading to higher productivity and 
therefore a higher standard of living. Again, this point is easy for 
those who are not software experts to understand.
    Just consider how much time they and colleagues waste due to 
software crashes, features that are difficult to use or don't 
accomplish the expected result, etc.
    Review the Findings of Fact. It is clear that Microsoft has not, 
in general, been willing to compete on the basis of offering better 
products and services. Instead, it's just been ruthless. An 
essential component of the free market is the rule of law. 
Microsoft's lawless behavior has harmed consumers by reducing 
innovation, lowering overall product quality, raising overall 
prices, and ultimately reducing national productivity.
    Microsoft's behavior was not reigned in by past settlements, and 
they remain unrepentant about the clear violations listed in the 
Findings of Fact. The current settlement appears to be both token 
and toothless, and will have very little affect.



MTC-00019496

From: Sean Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have a great many issues with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, and as an aware, informed, and concerned consumer, I 
want to highlight the one of most concern to me: encouraging 
competition among ISVs.
    1) Require advanced notice of technical requirements. Section 
III.H.3 of the Proposed Final Judgment requires competing ISVs of 
middleware to meet ``reasonable'' technical requirements 
seven (7) months before new releases of Windows, yet does not 
require Microsoft to disclose those requirements. This allows 
Microsoft to maintain their monopoly by changing the requirements 
after the seven (7) month deadline has passed.
    2) API documentation. On a related note, Section III.D of the 
Proposed Final Judgment specifies that release of the APIs to ISVs 
is not required until final beta of the middleware, yet this does 
not provide nearly enough time in the beta cycle to allow the ISVs 
to bring their middleware in line with Windows APIs. And it allows 
Microsoft another loophole, building on the one mentioned above. And 
many important APIs would remain undocumented, such as 
Microsoft.NET. Furthermore, there are unreasonable restrictions 
placed on the use of said documentation, especially as relating to 
writing for a competing operating system, by not allowing those who 
write applications for a competing operating system along with 
Windows versions of said applications to see this documentation.
    3) File formats At no part in the Proposed Final Judgment is 
Microsoft required to disclose any information about the file 
formats, even though those undocumented Microsoft formats, such as 
Microsoft Word (commonly called ``.doc'') and Microsoft 
Excel (commonly called ``.xls''), are part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry (``Findings of Fact'' 
paragraphs 20 and 39).
    4) Patents covering Windows API remain undisclosed Section III.I 
of the Proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to license certain 
of their intellectual property rights, but not to clearly announce 
which software patents protect the Windows API, creating a barrier 
to Windows-compatible operating systems, as they are unable to 
determine whether or not they may be violating Microsoft software 
patents. This will inhibit market acceptance of those competing 
operating systems, further maintaining Microsoft's monopoly.
    5) Definition of ``Windows'' The definition of Windows 
in the Proposed Final Judgment is excessively narrow; it does not 
apply to Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the 
X-Box, all of which use the Win32 API, and are advertise as 
``Windows Powered.'' In fact, Microsoft themselves have 
stated that Windows XP Tablet PC Edition is an API-compatible 
operating system, and will run Windows software. Any Microsoft 
operating system software which is even source-compatible, such as 
Pocket PC, with Windows 2000, Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP 
Professional, and their successors, should be covered by the 
Proposed Final Judgment, as the Windows operating system-in 
all its forms-is the linchpin of the Microsoft monopoly. It is 
my considered opinion that this Proposed Final Judgment is utterly 
inadequate to the stated purpose of ending Microsoft's illegally 
maintained monopoly. The existence of this monopoly has led to 
stagnation on the desktop, and cost Americans untold billions of 
dollars, both directly through Microsoft's damaging practices, and 
indirectly through causing the industry to standardize around 
programs rather than protocols, allowing for the spread of viruses 
such as SirCam and Nimda that exploit weaknesses in Microsoft 
software. To that extent, I support a much harsher penalty against 
Microsoft, that will allow the playing field to be leveled, and for 
ISVs to create truly competing products, and return the desktop 
computer software market to a healthy state.
    Sean
    [email protected]  ICQ 1913601  AIM 
Laudre
    http://www.drelau.com Drelau Productions



MTC-00019497

From: Erich Friesen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement,
    I believe Microsoft has behaved in an anti-competive way and 
continues as I write to behave in an anti-competitive way by making 
Windows XP not work as part of a multi-boot environment (as with 
LILO, which Windows used to work with) Therefore Microsoft's own 
actions prove they can not be trusted to restrain themselves from 
anti-competitive action, and they should be broken up. Punitive 
damages are appropriate here, for those companies that were harmed 
by Microsoft (e.g. Netscape, GNU Software Foundation)
    Erich Friesen
    Architect
    Saint Louis Missouri



MTC-00019498

From: David Schick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is bad for America, and for Americans. I do not 
support it in any way.
    David Schick
    712 Hammond Branch Drive #304
    Odenton, MD 21113



MTC-00019499

From: Rosie Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am strongly opposed to the settlement proposed between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. Instead of 
discouraging the anti-competitive practices of the past, the 
settlement allows Microsoft to maintain complete control over the 
functionality of competitors'' products. Without additional 
restraint and guarantees to software developers that their products 
will not be hindered unknowingly, Microsoft will remain a monopoly. 
Please reconsider your decision.
    Thank you for your time.
    Cheryl Nelson
    Cheney Hall Rm 213
    2650 Durant Avenue
    Berkeley, CA 94720



MTC-00019500

From: Doug Masson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I would like to write to register my objection to the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement. Individuals more scholarly than myself will 
have already informed your opinion, so I will keep it brief. In 
light of Microsoft's past history with conduct remedies, any future 
conduct remedy (as opposed to a structural remedy) would have to 
have swift, vigorous, and transparent 

[[Page 26730]]


oversight. The proposed remedy 
does not provide for this.
    Do not allow Microsoft the ability to hide behind ambiguous 
provisions ostensibly designed to protect their 
``security''. In the past, Microsoft has been indifferent 
to security concerns (note the constant problems with Outlook). 
There is no reason to believe the company won't hide behind security 
as a pretense for not allowing interoperability.
    Finally, the proposed settlement contains numerous provisions 
that could undermine the free software movement. Ultimately the free 
software movement contains the best hope for a competitive software 
environment. Anyone dependent on a profit to survive will ultimately 
be smothered by Microsoft as were the makers of Lotus, WordPerfect, 
and Netscape to name three.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    /s/Douglas J. Masson



MTC-00019501

From: Chris Cooney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have to say that the proposed segment is a joke in poor taste, 
and we are all the butt of it. First of all, the proposed amount is 
staggering low for Microsoft-they made $770M in interest in 
1999 (give or take), so if this were a straight fine, it would 
amount to a year and a half worth of interest. To put that in 
perspective, a year and a half of interest on my accounts runs abour 
$20.
    It gets worse. Microsoft gets to use that money to flood public 
schools-one of the last bastions of Apple, their only credible 
direct competitor. further, it looks like they can count the retail 
price of their software in the 1.1 billion. this means that they 
spend $200M on hardware and about $100M on software (retail value 
$900M), take a hefty deduction on taxes and possibly make money on 
the deal. Never mind that this does nothing to even slow their 
rapacious assault on the industry; note the common fate of a 
Microsoft competitor is to be buried under piles of cash, find their 
lead developers are suddenly working for Bill Gates, or find that 
Microsoft is making something equivalent to their product and giving 
it away. Ask a venture capitalist how many companies thay ever 
funded that competed with Microsoft. You won't find many.
    I'm not exactly sure what needs to be done, but it needs to be 
far closer to Jackson's breakup order than this. Microsoft is 
killing the industry and stiffling innovation.
    -chris



MTC-00019502

From: Spencer Cathey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear JUSTICE DEPARTMENT,
    As you know, the computer .COM people, left on their own, caused 
substantial damage to the marketplace, wasting billions of otherwise 
useful investment dollars. If Microsoft is not shown, by your 
department, it must improve, it too will go the way of Enron. It 
won't be funny, and will lead to your doorstep. Do the right thing. 
Nobody is fooled by these power politics. You can lead the way to 
progress, or to disaster. Allowing Microsoft a free hand is the 
wrong thing to do.
    I have programmed a computer for 20 years, was a Windows NT 
evangelist, and have been steadily dissappointed with Microsoft's 
lack of innovation for the last 8 years. I wouldn't buy their stock 
if I was you.
    Sincerely,
    Spencer Cathey
    3891A Cedar Creek Road,
    Colville, WA, 99114
    (509)732-8973
    [email protected]



MTC-00019503

From: Chris Hochrine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I work in the computer field, and while I do not directly work 
with Microsoft products, I am familiar with the programs from office 
work. I have several years experience in both computer programming, 
and computer system administration on multiple operating systems
    I strongly feel that the proposed settlement is inadequate. Not 
only does it offer little or no restitution to the parties harmed by 
the anti competitive behavior, but it also does effectively nothing 
to prevent Microsoft from continuing the behavior in the future.
    In particular, in section III.J.1, Microsoft is allowed to keep 
APIs closed under certain conditions. The conditions specified are 
so broad they could easily be taken to mean every piece of software 
written by Microsoft. This would enable Microsoft to develop 
internal APIs, which would give all competitive programs a 
significant disadvantage in performance and interoperability.
    Additionally, in section II.J.2, Microsoft is allowed to not 
share its ``open'' APIs with individuals. The hobby 
software development community is very large, and produces a great 
deal of code. This provision allows Microsoft to only share its APIs 
with companies, thus excluding the hobby software developer. The 
provision also gives Microsoft the discretion to refuse a legitimate 
company if, in Microsoft's opinion, the company does not have a 
viable business plan. It is not a large stretch to image that any 
potential competitor would be classified as not being a viable 
company.
    Finally, given Microsoft's past actions concerning the earlier 
anti-trust suit, the provision for effective enforcement of the 
terms falls far short. The company has shown in the past it will 
ignore court orders and will selectively interpret provisions to its 
favor. I urge the settlement to be rejected on all points.
    Chris Hochrine
    Peoria, AZ



MTC-00019504

From: Michael Bond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been using alternate OS's (not windows) for years now, 
but there is always something ``missing'' in the mid 
1990's I used OS/2 Warp 3, until about 1996 when there were a few 
key applications that required Windows 95 to run. in 1998 I switched 
to Linux and run it as my Primary OS to date at home. I Also have a 
MacOS X laptop for road work. However i am unable to use linux 
reliably at work because of the difficulties of interacting with 
Windows. While it is possible to interact with windows, the closed 
nature of windows does not make it possible for me to Administer 
Windows effectively from a Linux workstation.
    This cause me to occupy 2 computers at work, because another 
core part of my job requires the use of an Operating system with 
many Text editing feature and programming language. Unix, in my case 
linux, is the best choice. However every time I receive a computer 
upgrade it costs my employer twice as much money because My job 
requires me to use 2 computers.
    If windows had a more open architecture it would be possible to 
develop tools like Damerware (www.dameware.com) which allow complete 
control over the network that i am responsible for maintaining. I do 
not ask that Microsoft Open Source the window operating system or 
Microsoft internet explorer. They are entitled to keeping their 
source code closed and locked away. I do however Ask that microsoft 
release everything required to program tools that would allow myself 
and other professionals that need to use alternate Operating Systems 
the ability to administor and maintain, fully, a computer running 
windows over a network to the same ability that Windows 
Administrators can.
    Michael Bond
    [email protected]



MTC-00019505

From: polly a. woodress
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:46pm
Subject: AOL Netscape Is Trying To Sway Justice
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The news that AOL Netscape has filed suite against Microsoft 
just as the Dept. of Justice is in the final, punishment phase of 
it's suite against Microsoft has but one intended outcome...which is 
to try to sway the D of J into thinking that MSFT was guilty of 
doing harm to competition. The facts about the so called 
``browser wars'' between MSFT and Netscape could not be 
more clear. Remember, please, that AOL bought Netscape in the midst 
of the D of J case against MSFT...Remember also that all browser 
users, including the majority of the public as well as the so called 
``high techies'', agreed that the MSFT browser was just 
plain better, easier and more user friendly than was Netscape. That 
is why Netscape lost the ``war''. I am a shareholder in 
AOL/Time Warner...I have owner the stock as a very early owner of 
Turner Broadcasting Company shares. As you know, Turner merged with 
Time Warner, then Time Warner merged with AOL. Since the AOL merger, 
I have been disappointed with many corporate decisions, each giving 
me less and less 

[[Page 26731]]


confidence in the business ability of AOL. AOL is 
either looking for a ``quick fix'', I fear, to a very real 
money problem, or a ``quick fix'', I fear, to a 
competition problem. But, please know that the ``fix'' 
will come as a part of your present findings/punishment of MSFT. 
Don't let them use this cheap trick to influence your current 
decisions. Let another court take up their issue. But, above all, 
please let the technology sector of this country get back on tract 
inovating new and needed resources. We have so many really important 
issues before us and we need leaders, in industry as well as 
government, that can connect with the people. MSFT creates real 
instruments that help streamline the future in lieu of just re-
newing a monthly subscription for a service.
    Please don't be influenced by this cheap shot!
    Thanks. Polly Woodress



MTC-00019506

From: Marcel Valcarce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement lets them off too easy
    As a long time member of the computer industry and someone who 
has worked with Microsoft products and those of other companies I 
would like to say that I think the settlement as proposed is a slap 
in the wrist to a company that has over charged consumers millions 
of dollars, and killed competition in the computer industry, I urge 
you to reject the settlement and seek sanctions that will actually 
punish Microsoft for their illegal actions.



MTC-00019507

From: Craig Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I think that under the Proposed Final Judgment 
as written, allows and encourages significant anticompetitive 
practices to continue, would delay the emergence of competing 
Windows-compatible operating systems, and is therefore not in the 
public interest. It should not be adopted without substantial 
revision to address these problems.
    An example of this is the PFJ fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive 
License Terms currently used by Microsoft eg Microsoft has used both 
restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities to discourage 
users from running Windows applications on Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems.



MTC-00019508

From: Jack Sutton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:45pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern
    To Whom It May Concern
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Sutton



MTC-00019509

From: Dink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please be as a tough as possible on these people. There are 
several able developers being stymied by their predatory practices.
    Thanks Dink-``Don't assume malice for what stupidity 
can explain.''



MTC-00019510

From: Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ``We were supposed to fight for 
people who couldn't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight 
for Willie.''-PFC Lowden Downey in the motion picture 
``A Few Good Men''
    For years the corporation known as Microsoft has run roughshod 
over anyone and everyone who would dare to compete with them. The 
term ``innovate'' was bandied about quite often during the 
anti-trust trial and I find the excessive use of that word to be the 
only aspect of the proceedings which was more ludicrous than the 
testimony of Bill Gates. Microsoft has done nothing to earn the term 
``innovator''. To date they have either stolen any 
advanced features incorporated into their software or have bought 
another company which already had developed technology they wished 
to add to their stable.
    As someone who has been deeply involved in the world of 
microcomputer technology and use for over twelve years I am appalled 
by the fashion which the Department of Justice has shirked its 
solemn duty to the American people. This is a company which 
blatantly leverages its monopoly power to vanquish any worthy 
competitor. They continue to tie every product they can deep into 
the Windows operating system. Internet Explorer virtually wiped out 
any viability of the Netscape browser simply by virtue of being 
included with the Windows distributions. Internet Explorer at the 
time was widely acknowledged to be an inferior application however 
as it was available at no additional cost to the end user it easily 
wrested market share from Netscape.
    The fact of the matter is that Microsoft has been found guilty 
of violating FEDERAL LAW. No response other than the most severe of 
penalties is appropriate. Bear in mind that the fruits of their 
monopolistic behavior exist in the form of billions of dollars of 
cash reserves. These cash reserves, ill-gotten gains, to say the 
least, should be heavily fined. The company, to date, remains 
totally and completely unrepentant and should be broken into no less 
than three entities which would be allowed to have no direct 
dealings with one another. While you're at it, you should file 
charges against Bill Gates for perjury. For his so-called testimony 
was nothing less than misleading. Finally, the source code of the 
Windows operating system should be opened to the public and 
published as open sourced code.
    Make no mistake. Your failure to fully and properly prosecute 
these remedies will result in an even bolder company. One which you 
are obviously becoming impotent to control.
    IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! You're supposed to fight for those of 
us who are not powerful enough to fight this behemoth. If you do not 
act, and act wisely, Microsoft will gain more and more control over 
more and more business sectors. Even now they are attempting to wipe 
out competition in the console game market by selling their X-box at 
a lower cost than required for them to assemble them in the first 
place.
    They have dipped deeply into online banking and travel. How much 
farther must they go before the segments of our government which act 
now as special interests are stopped from national, or even global, 
domination?
    Michael D Logan
    Denver, CO



MTC-00019511

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't like PFJ, both with M$.
    Dan



MTC-00019512

From: Rob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like it known that I am opposed to the tenative 
settlement in the Microsoft case.
    As it stands the terms are too narrowly defined and will allow 
Microsoft to continue with their illegal and immoral practices in 
the very near future.
    In addition, the goverment should have already learned that 
``slapping Microsoft on the wrist'' did not accomplish 
anything. They continued with their shady business practices right 
away, and even now, in the middle of all this they are attempting to 
corner markets. Their .net stratagy is an attempt to gain control of 
the internet. If the 

[[Page 26732]]


government can't see this then they better get 
experts who can.
    I suggest getting back issues of PC Magazine and reading John C. 
Dvork's columns. He tells it like it is and often has commentary's 
about Microsofts business practices.
    The only thing that might get Bill Gates to stop trying to kill 
all competition is to hit him where it hurts. A really big fine 
would help and having him step down from any involvement with 
Microsoft would be even better.
    What I really think should be done is to split Microsoft in 
several pieces: Internet software, Operating Systems, and Other 
Applications. This is the only way you'll ever get Microsoft to stop 
their ``destroy all'' practices.
    Rob Iacullo (Eagle)
    Mountlake Terrace, WA
    [email protected]
    http://home.attbi.com/amuse
    Team Amiga



MTC-00019513

From: Frank P. Nemecek, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to protest the Proposed Final Settlement between 
the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft. The PFJ doesn't take 
into account Windows-compatible competing operating systems. In 
failing to do so, I believe that it amounts to an invitation for 
continued inappropriate conduct by Microsoft as well as a signal to 
world at large that the DOJ is not serious about enforcing anti-
trust legislation.
    Frank P. Nemecek, Jr.
    Grand Blanc, MI



MTC-00019514

From: Lee Graba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. As I am a software developer, I have paid very close 
attention to this case since its inception and am amazed that we 
have the current proposal before us. Even though Microsoft was found 
guilty on key points, the proposed settlement does so little to 
prevent future occurances, its as good as no settlement at all. it 
will lead to Microsoft continuing the very things they were found 
guilty of! Once more, companies will be denied a fair shot at the 
marketplace, since MS will use their monopolies to short-circuit the 
decisions of the market. How can small companies get funding for 
innovative new ideas and products if the likely result will be that 
MS steals the market segment without really competing? Will venture 
capitalists be likely to fund companies if this is the possible 
result? Obviously no, and the result will be a decrease in 
innovation, and a decrease in consumer choice. The question I have 
to ask is, does our DOJ and the courts actually believe in enforcing 
the laws that are on our books? Is this the type of legacy that the 
current DOJ and the courts want to leave, that of a DOJ soft on 
business (even with a guilty verdict handed to it by the previous 
administration), and a court more interested in moving the case 
along than finding a proper remedy?
    Lee Graba
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00019515

From: James Sterling Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    HI, I feel that the deal proposed is not the correct way to 
settle the case I have to work with Microsoft products everyday. I 
do not use Microsoft Products on my own computers because of the 
experience I have with them. I suggest that you be a lot more harsh 
on Microsoft and not let them get away with this.
    Thank You
    James Sterling Jr.



MTC-00019516

From: Chris Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It must be 
changed!



MTC-00019517

From: Chris Fenwick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dir Sirs... I am a televsion director who directs a show about 
the computer industry. The Computer Chronicles is the longest 
running show about the technology, we are currently in the 19th 
season. I have been involved in the show for almost it's entire 
life. My position gives me a unique perspective on the tech sector.
    One point of interest about Microsoft that I would like to share 
with you as you make your dicisions about what to do with Microsoft 
is this. For the past 2 decades Microsoft has acted one way and one 
way only. The prevailing attitude from Microsoft has been this, 
``We are right, everyone else is wrong, and if we stand our 
ground because we can afford too, everyone else will fall in line 
behind us.'' In other words, ``if we say it is so, they 
will believe us.''
    Now on first glance, this seems like corporate america at it's 
best. Believe it is so, be confident and achieve your dream. 
However, this is not the tone that Microsoft has taken. I realize 
that this case is about specifics BUT everything should be taken 
into account when determining what the PUNISHMENT should be. This is 
about a PUNISHMENT, not a slap on the wrist. We have NO idea how 
many companies have been put out of business because of the unfair 
practices of Microsoft. Look at how Microsoft has tried to TELL the 
government what it's punishment should be... that is just like the 
arrogance of Microsoft. Microsofts punishment must be deep and just. 
Do not be lulled into the spell that this company has caste on so 
many people. Deliver a punishment that will make a difference and 
send a message to everyone.
Thank you for your time.
Chris Fenwick
Director/Lead Designer
Broadcast Business Graphics
www.chrisfenwick.com
650-598-3789



MTC-00019518

From: Mark Rivera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:51pm
Subject: Opposed. Suggestions...
    To whom it may concern, I am opposed to the settlement set 
forth. Most importantly, the proposed settlement does nothing to 
correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that 
correct or redress their previous abuses. If a person or 
organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts 
and then receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that 
they cannot commit those acts again, they have still benefited from 
their illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of 
their abuses and not for the American people. VERY IMPORTANT 
-- One remedy in particular I would like to see included: 
Microsoft should be required to use ONLY standard file formats (like 
those adopted by the W3C) for all documents generated by its 
software. This would allow an even playing field for competitors 
large and small, and not lock consumers in to using Microsoft 
products due to legacy data. Only then will it truly be, ``may 
the BEST software win'', and that benefits everyone. My views 
on other aspects are congruent with the December 7, 2001 document 
provided by Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr. (Bar No. 12757), et al., 
``Plaintiff Litigating States'' Remedy Proposals'', 
and I ask that you consider taking action which is more similar to 
this in spirit and effect.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Rivera



MTC-00019519

From: Isaac Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the microsoft settlement is a bad idea. It fails 
to address many issues, please see Dan Kegel's open letter for a 
summary of why it is bad for the free software community, one of 
Microsoft's most important and most frequently ignored competitors. 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    I am a free software development, a researcher, and a computer 
science student at the Ohio State University.
    peace,
    Michael Isaac Jones.



MTC-00019520

From: Brendan Younger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your settlement is absolutely unbelievable. Every one of you 
should be shot in the head for ever agreeing to such a flimsy, 
toothless mass of trash that is the settlement proposal. Damn you, 
damn the Bush administration, and damn Microsoft.
    An Angry Citizen Who Would Like to See You Pansy Republicans All 
Drowning in a Pool of Your Own Blood,
    Brendan


[[Page 26733]]




MTC-00019521

From: David C. Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Section IV.B of the proposed settlement agreement creates a 
three member Technical Committee ``to assist in enforcement of 
and compliance with this Final Judgment''. One member of the 
committee is to be chosen by Microsoft, one by the plaintiffs, and a 
third by the first two members. Microsoft is not allowed to object 
to the third member except on grounds specified in IV.B.2. However, 
there is no restriction placed on the grounds on which the 
Microsoft-appointee might object to a candidate for the third 
position. This gives Microsoft indirect veto power over the choice 
of the third member, and therefore the power to appoint or veto two-
thirds of the membership of the Technical Committee. If the 
Department of Justice proposed giving a convicted felon the power to 
appoint or veto two-thirds of the members of his parole board, that 
would be an outrage.
    To give Microsoft the analogous power is outrageous and should 
by itself be sufficient reason to make the proposed settlement 
unacceptable.
David Fox
[email protected]
58 Hawthorne St. #2
Somerville, MA 02144



MTC-00019522

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I've followed the Microsoft trial from its beginning. It is 
clear from the testimony even to a layman that Microsoft does not 
respect the law or the judicial system. The proposed settlement 
leaves enough room for them to continue protecting their desktop 
monopoly through predatory practices, and to use it to try to extend 
it to the server and communications fields as well.
    I work as a consultant, and have over the years seen many 
technically superior products fall by the wayside after Microsoft 
entered the field. The consumers ultimately pay for this-even 
the small minority who run on other platforms.
    The quickly dwindling individuals and businesses that still rely 
on ``alternative'' operating systems need to spend 
increasing amounts of energy to maintain compatibility with the 
``mainstream.'' New Microsoft products use data formats 
that differ enough from previous versions to make it difficult for 
existing applications to exchange data with them. Since Microsoft 
frowns on the use of its development tools and information for non-
Windows products, and since this information is necessary to make 
the products work on Windows, it becomes increasingly difficult for 
developers to build or maintain products for any other 
platforms-especially since the Windows market is the most 
profitable.
    At this stage, excluding specialty fields, the 
``alternative'' platforms have become small enough that 
mere removal of artificial barriers is no longer sufficient to 
resuscitate choice in the marketplace. The number of commercial OS/2 
developers has declined to a handful, and BeOS, and Amiga, for 
example, are no longer available. I sincerely hope for the future of 
the industry that the current proposal for settlement will be 
rejected, and effective measures will be taken to ensure that open 
competition, innovation and development will once again become 
possible.
    Yours,
    Teijo Kaakinen
    [email protected]



MTC-00019523

From: Marc Fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i believe that microsoft has had their day in court. the unfair 
standards they set have all but backrupted a few OS upstarts and 
forced computer manu. not to allow them. I am a stock holder of Be, 
Inc. which made(makes) an incredible os that was 5 yrs ahead of 
anything they have now, and this was in 96..Be struck a deal with a 
few computer makers, but Microsoft forced them, compaq, HP, and 
Dell, into not using the alternative OS. Now Be is all but gone, the 
major part of the co. has been bought by Palm, inc. and who knows if 
we'll ever see it again.
    As for MS idea of settlement, that would only hurt my other 
stocks, which are Apple.
    Be done with MS already,. they had enough time in the spotlight.
    Marc



MTC-00019524

From: James Walton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:50pm
Subject: Protest of current Microsoft Settlement under the Tunney 
Act
    Being American I have little time for my own activities etc... 
such as I have has only marginally followed this case as it 
convolutedly floundered through the wrangling of countless legal 
issues and needs. This complaint thus will be grounded more in 
concepts than in hard nosed legal study of the PFJ. It is just a 
blurb and only icing on the cake of issues which I find so 
disturbing in Microsoft's business practices and it's skillful use 
of legal gray areas.
    Concept 1. Anything which protects, must protect all. If it 
protect only a few then it must do so because by protecting the few 
it better promotes the protection of all. This is Insurance folks. 
Statistics says that you get better control over variance by looking 
at an entire population. By giving a small cost to all you can 
provide for the large losses of the few. It is simple it is 
conceptual and thus almost poetic. thus by definition it will not 
work that way in the real world with competition and snake oil 
salesmen and such. Enter the regulator.
    Insurance is not so fair or simple as it's concept. So how does 
a regulator Insure the protection/benefit of the many and encourage 
their greatest benefit can be received for the cost? Standards, 
requirements, rules and laws. A mortgage lender must give an APR to 
all clients and show them how much interest they will pay over the 
life of a loan. Fairness to inform but the final choice to move 
forward is still in the hands of the many. Take this requirement out 
and we are getting slighted for 10% loans that claim 4% interest 
with insane upfront fees that may just be added to the principle to 
lengthen the payoff and increase the APR.
    You must regulate to prevent abuse in many aspects of 
competition. competitor is not moral left to it's own virtues. It 
does what get's it the greatest profits. You must regulate to insure 
it does not take profit at the price of people.
    The largest conceptual issue in the Microsoft monopoly trust is 
that no one can get their APR from Microsoft. We don't know the 
terms we can't see the amortization's behind the facade of our loan. 
Or the final payout of our insurance benefit and what clauses may 
negate us even getting that benefit in the first place.
    Microsoft uses the law like any company to make it's own 
corporate iron curtain about it's software in which it holds the 
copyright and patent and control of any would be viewer. The only 
standards are those that Microsoft creates for it's own products and 
interests. The only ``openness'' is the legalese you are 
expected to read before using any of this software as a licensee.
    The OS is the bedrock of it all. Every thing that Microsoft has 
become it has grown from the control of that OS in the hands of a 
huge captive audience. And like any company a captive audience is 
good, the best, it's a varitable goldmine. One does not let them 
cross the picket lines into other pastures if one can prevent it. 
And so we have the windows API's and the source code itself which 
are company products none may view. thus those who know the OS 
better work for the company and can best design products to work 
with it. This is claimed to be their legal patent copyright cost of 
research and mindshare. But this is an unlevel playing field. How 
can your app compete against an app designed for that OS with all 
the OS's secrets plummed. How can you fight such a battle if the 
software product you compete against can be given away for free 
while you must charge 20 dollars just to stay afloat? This they call 
survival of the fittest? Not in my backyard. This is feeding chaos 
your children. An OS must have known methods within it it for use, 
equal to all open to all and unrestricted to any. The API's at least 
should be available to the software industry and the Microsoft 
settlement does not go far enough in this. A Goliath can live long 
but it can stumble and it can spawn many David's. WordPerfect cannot 
compete, Netscape cannot compete, Linux is yet new and already 
Microsoft has honed in on the many threats this suite of David's 
brings forth.
    I care not about monetary fines or structural breakup of 
Microsoft. THESE ISSUES DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE BASIC FLAW THAT 
MICROSOFT SHOWS AGAIN AND AGAIN.
    Microsoft in many ways is like the water which all other 
software plant's must grow from. They are the medium. But they cast 
their own seeds on that medium and their seeds grow quickest as they 
know the soils 


[[Page 26734]]


composition and are designed to use it most 
effectively. The only true breakup that will be affective is to 
change long term protectionism in patents and copyright for software 
which is a rapidly changing creature dependent on the sharing of 
information for greatest creative use. Everytime we invent another 
stale wheel of code we have failed to use someone's talent to truly 
innovate and the spirit and purpose of patent or copyright law is 
lost. There must be no obstruction to mindshare. I am yet poorly 
skilled with items such as Linux but the concepts which allowed such 
things to flower are so similar to my own and to the ideals of the 
constitution's founder's. Let those who create get there due, but 
not too long and not at horrid control of all others. Let there 
creation breed new uses and creations as swiftly as possible and 
this is the golden ring of innovation.
    You will never force Microsoft to open source. But you could 
force ALL API's open for the use and learning of all programmer's 
and thus provide more rapid development and innovation.
    Openness, freedom of use without legal restraint or restriction. 
True fair use true ownership not a license to lease. Freedom to take 
apart and put together in different ways and forms. Freedom to think 
for ones self how best to get to a goal without legal restraint or 
black boxes of code in between.
    The real world is doubtless impossible to simplify in such a 
way. It is ever changing and complex. But this country is not 
changing with it's technology and it's status quo is now like a 
field of icebergs adrift about a foolish Titanic. The law is vast 
and cumbersome thus requiring ever more lawyers. Much like the IRS 
and it's ever increasing rules of accounting. The system no longer 
does what it was meant to. I protest the current Microsoft 
Settlement on the grounds that it does not give programmers the 
knowledge they need nor the freedom to use that knowledge to build 
their own software products on the competitive level of Microsoft 
who know's it's products and can even develop those products to NOT 
work with an opponents products. Standards, openness free use of API 
at least.
    Innovation requires freedom. This is the basis of our 
constitution. That constitution was also corrupt and it's flaw's are 
still seen today in the poverty of the minority. Our law is binding 
it can provide freedom to some and cage other's. How many decades 
went by with such flaws allowed. How many such flaws still remain 
empowering some minorities while potentially enslaving the very 
masses.
    Make Microsoft share. Throw down their curtain's and let us see 
the machine's beneath and learn how to better use them for the good 
of all.



MTC-00019525

From: Jonathan Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sections IIID and IIIE should explicitly require said APIs and 
Communications Protocol to be made available to the public, without 
restrictions on disclosure or fair use. I am afraid that with the 
current wording of these sections, Microsoft will have too much 
power to limit access to said APIs and Communications Protocol, and 
thus inhibit interoperability. Interoperability is essential for 
fair competition, but Microsoft has been deliberately trying to 
inhibit interoperability by having proprietary standards. I am 
otherwise satisfied with the proposed final judgment.



MTC-00019526

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea. Just one MCP's opinion.



MTC-00019527

From: Michelle Gldnugget
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for inviting my comments on this issue. I am not 
affiliated with Microsoft, Sun, AOL or any of the big guns in the 
computing world. I am just an end user, computer instructor and an 
interested party. I am VERY UNHAPPY with the proposed settlement of 
the DOJ lawsuit. MS is a convicted monopolist. They have flagrantly 
defied and lied at every turn to protect their monopoly. I have seen 
the quality of their software decline as their power and market 
share grew. They continue to produce inferior products and squeeze 
out comptetitors with their constant ``bundling'' of extra 
software with their OS's. This does not produce a better product. It 
reduces competition and lowers the quality for everyone. Please. Go 
back to the table. Come up with a settlement which does more than a 
slap on the wrist. The public already believes the Bush Whitehouse 
will try to make this go away quickly, but please prove us wrong. 
Show MS and other would-be anti-trust violators that being big 
doesn't make you above the law.
    Thanks for listening.
    Michelle Blowers
    Computer Instructor
    Paradise, California



MTC-00019528

From: Allan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    W et al,
    Clearly MS has abused their position of sole OS maker for the 
popular IBM clone platform. From way before Netscape including 
current acts they are not bound by US laws or moral behavior. Please 
punish them in a real way, not just letting them into the 
educational market for free.
    regards,
    Allan Slocum



MTC-00019529

From: dog fish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am deeply concerned that the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft would not remedy their illegal monopoly. It seems that the 
remedies proposed would only legalize their current and past 
practices. This would in effect create a technological dictatorship. 
Very efficient in the short term, disasterous when the dictator 
begins to fail. We should not tie our government and economy to one 
companies marketing decisions.
    Thank you and may God grant you wisdom,
    Thomas Mahoney
    306 Westwood Dr.
    McMinnville TN 37110



MTC-00019530

From: Alex Mucha-Equus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ
    Call this proposed settlement ``Justice''-it 
doesn't reflect the earlier findings of fact regarding Microsoft's 
conduct, doesn't punish Microsoft and further, won't stop them doing 
the same thing again.
    They must be really laughing at you guys-you've been 
stooged!
    Alex Mucha
    (I'd suggest you read analysis in the technical press, which is 
understandable for the non-geek such as at www.theregister.co.uk to 
get some idea of what you've missed)
Equus Design Consultants Pte Ltd
8B Murray Terrace
Singapore 079522
Tel: (65) 323 2996
Fax: (65) 323 2991
www.equus-design.com



MTC-00019531

From: Jeff Kreis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From what I understand of the agreement reached with microsoft, 
I feel justice has NOT been served for me as a consumer and me as an 
american.
    With all sincerity,
    Jeff Kreis



MTC-00019532

From: John Wetherall
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 8:55pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The monopolistic behaviour of Microsoft damages software 
developers and users in Australia and the rest of the world as well 
as in the USA. I urge you most strongly to pull this renegade 
company into line and force it to shed its monopoly power. For far 
too long the world has had to put up with second rate software 
(bloatware) because this company can get away with it and stiffle 
much better software from ever getting to the market. I hope the 
anti trust actions over the past 5 years are going to achieve 
something of significance. The last offer from Microsoft was an 
absolute insult to all concerned.
    Yours sincerely
A/Professor John Wetherall, PhD  Voice mail: 
61-8-9266 2337


[[Page 26735]]


School of Biomedical Sciences  Fax: 
61-8-9266-2342
Curtin University
GPO Box U1987, Perth,
Western Australia 6845
Email: [email protected]
Home telephone: 61-8-9389 1918
``Inaugural School winner of Curtin University's Teaching 
Excellence Award''
CRICOS provider code 00301J



MTC-00019533

From: John Kesler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please take the time to analyze the motivations of those opposed 
to the ``Microsoft Settlement''.
    I believe it would be a travesty of justice to allow embittered 
competitive forces to manipulate or influence the application of the 
full weight and power of the government in order to cause detriment 
to one of the most magnificent wealth-generating machines known to 
modern man. Market forces will control the likes of Microsoft in the 
long term.
    john kesler



MTC-00019534

From: Isaac Sparrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:00pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I would like to voice my concern over the Justice Department's 
proposed settlement with Microsoft, a found monopoly. I would like 
to relate my personal experience with Microsoft Licensing. I work as 
a Software Engineer for a small company. One afternoon my boss came 
in with a new computer for me. An Emachine's PC with a DVD drive, 
CD-R, 1.5 ghz Intel Pentium IV processor and 256 MB of RAM. This 
computer was to replace my current machine which was obsolete (300 
mhz). I was so excited. The first thing I noticed is the new machine 
had Microsoft Windows XP pre-installed. Since I use Linux, I wanted 
to return Windows XP and get the company's money back. I had already 
called Emachine's to see if I could transfer the license for Windows 
XP to another machine to use for testing our software, but I was 
told ``you can't do that sir ... I guess we're saving 
Microsoft.''. I was also told that Windows XP added no value to 
the computer I had anyway. Microsoft must be giving away Windows XP 
for free? Next, my co-worker called Microsoft directly, to see if we 
could get our money back or transfer the license to another 
computer, and instead of being helped he was immediately transfered 
to the Anti-Piracy division. I installed Linux anyway and now I have 
a copy of Windows XP that I don't use. My company had to pay for it 
even though we didn't want to use it and will not use it.
    The proposed settlement will do nothing to prohibit Microsoft 
form continuing this licensing behavior and will still allow the 
monopoly to punish computer manufactures who would give me a choice 
of operating systems and software.
    Thank you for your attention,
Isaac Sparrow
Staff Engineer
GnuPG Key Fingerprint:
1060 5A07 F6EC B2B3 9AAA 3EA5 7B79 EFE1 6397 4F47
Get my public key at:
http://www.concentric.net/issparow
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019535

From: William Nau
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was informed that this e-mail address is inviting opinion on 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. If that is not the case, I 
apologize. You may consider me to be an extremist and Microsoft 
hater. I won't call you wrong. I am baffled as to how the proposed 
settlement is any form of punishment for deeds done.
    From my understanding, the proposed settlement helps Microsoft 
further strengthen their existing monopoly by allowing (forcing?) 
them to further inject their software into our schools. If I 
interpret the settlement correctly, Microsoft will be monitored for 
anti-monopolistic practices for a given period of time. If they 
conduct monopolistic practices during that period, the monitoring 
will be extended. How is that punishment?
    I've watched Microsoft destroy, through their monopoly, products 
much more important the web browsers. They've used their monopoly to 
destroy word processors, spreadsheets, network diagram software, 
presentation software, and even operating systems. As I watch 
Microsoft take over other markets (embedded operating systems, 
embedded software, internet services, etc) with inferior products, 
I'm troubled. I fear the future, and lack of potential progress, if 
Microsoft doesn't receive discouragement for their past, present, 
and future acts.
    Internet Explorer vs. Netscape Navigator (and tons of other, now 
dead, browsers) is just scratching the surface. It is their 
illegally obtained (my opinion) monopoly on the operating system 
that must be addressed. It disturbs me to try and comprehend all of 
the companies that have gone out of business and people that have 
lost their jobs, not to mention innovation lost, due to destruction 
of competition. In a capitalistic society, competitiveness provides 
innovation. That's not happening here. The monolith needs to be 
stopped, if not destroyed. If you're still reading, I truly thank 
you for your time.
    William Nau
    CC:nau(a)tiny.net



MTC-00019536

From: TRAVIS AUSEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may consern, In my opinion, the DoJ of this country 
have done the American people and now provide the rest of the world 
a monumental injustice that will never be matched. You not only have 
proved to the American people an the rest of those that watched that 
corporations can buy and sell justice. Your faithful and very 
disapointed provider.
    Travis A. Ausen



MTC-00019537

From: itsmitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I just want to add my 2 cents. Please do not settle with MS as 
proposed. I resent the fact that MS was found guilty of operating a 
monopoly and your settlement agreement appears as less than a 
deterrent than an endorsement of those actions. If Microsoft spent 
more time/money on building secure and stable software they may have 
won the ``browser wars'' on their own merits (at least 
before the breakup of the Bell phone monopoly we could at least 
claim we had the best damn phone service in the entire world).
    Lets not reward them by giving them the last 10% of the 
operating system market share to them with the obscene offer to 
provide software to our public schools! How much does a few thousand 
copies of cd's cost them to manufacture! The R and D has already 
been paid for and profits returned using their illegal methods! And 
has anyone checked the price of used computers lately?!! Please wake 
up and represent yourselves as the Winner, Not Loser, in the 
settlement process. My Tax dollars are willing to be used in a Fair 
settlement. Don't allow this travesty to continue.
    Mitch Edington



MTC-00019538

From: Erik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    When I heard about the Proposed Microsoft Settlement, I had one 
question: How much did Bill pay the DOJ?
    I understand the situation is a little more complex than that, 
but as a citizen of the United States, I hoped the government would 
protect my interests in the Microsoft case.
    Your proposed settlement totally fails to protect the interests 
of the customers.



MTC-00019539

From: Joe Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take this opportunity to voice my opinion on the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case. I feel that Microsoft's actions have 
harmed not only competitors but more so, consumers. It is a tragedy 
that the pro-business stance of many in this country allows 
consumers to be hurt by high prices, less competition, and in my 
opinion, inferior products. In addition I feel that the proposed 
settlements do almost nothing to end Microsoft's predatory practices 
by allowing Microsoft to side step any attempt at regulation. The 
proposed settlements also do nothing to punish Microsoft for its 
past misdeeds and repeated law breaking. Personally I feel that the 
only effective solutions would be those that are able to neutralize 
Microsoft's monopolies to foster competition and true innovation in 
the computer industry. If not, I fear that the current economic 
state of the computer 


[[Page 26736]]


industry and the lack of innovative products 
will continue for a long, long time. Please don't let my fears 
become reality by giving Microsoft yet another slap on the wrist. 
Joe Howard Puyallup, WA Student Programmer-University of Puget 
Sound



MTC-00019540

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purposed settlement is terrible idea



MTC-00019541

From: Sean McKenna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional with over 20 years experience I feel 
compelled to make my opinion known. The proposed DOJ settlement is 
not good for computer professionals, the software business or the 
public. There are many public postings available which detail the 
reasons why this is so much more persuasively than I am able in this 
email. I wish merely to add my voice to the multitude crying out to 
see justice done and a return to fair play in the field.
    Yours sincerely,
    Sean McKenna



MTC-00019542

From: Katie Allsbrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:00pm
Subject: The settlement with Microsoft is horrible. The settlement 
with Microsoft is horrible.



MTC-00019543

From: David Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is fails to properly address 
the situation. Microsoft should be forced to clearly and publicly 
document ALL of it's APIs.
    David Forster



MTC-00019544

From: Anthony Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement between the US Justice Department and Microsoft 
seems unlikely to succeed in restraining the predatory behavior of 
Microsoft. That the settlement was reached during the Bush 
administration appears to further tarnish their reputation and the 
reputation of the Republican Party with respect to holding 
corporations and political contributors to acceptable standards of 
justice and conduct. I work in the tech industry, and I hope the 
Bush appointees to the Justice Department realize that they haven't 
impressed very many people in this part of the demographic. Wonder 
how the next election will go?
    Anthony Ross



MTC-00019545

From: James Glidewell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computing professional, with 20 years experience as a 
programmer and system administrator, I believe that the proposed 
settlement is completely inadequate in that it fails to adequately 
address a number of factors which the findings of fact listed.
    A single example will have to suffice: there is no requirement 
for Microsoft to publish the file format specification for data 
files generated by their Office products.
    Microsoft has long used the proprietary nature of these file 
formats to force large enterprises to choose MS Word or Excel, 
rather than other competitors, since it was deemed essential that 
any word processor or spreadsheet be able to read Word or Excel 
files, which other software vendors were forced to painstaking 
reverse-engineer, a process which could take months to years.
    This is but one of the potent tools Microsoft has used over the 
years to leverage a dominant position into a truly monopolistic one.
    I do not believe that the proposed settlement meets the letter 
of the law-that a proposed settlement will *ensure* that the 
monopoly will be *unable* to again exert its monopoly. By such a 
standard, the proposed settlement is completely inadequate.
    Thank you.
    James B Glidewell
    6324 18 Ave NE
    Seattle WA 98115



MTC-00019546

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Remember that these transgressions took place while 
already under a previous DOJ compliance order. All new measures must 
have ``teeth'' to have a chance of being effective against 
the monopoly-exploiting long-term strategic policy of Microsoft 
Corporation. Microsoft will only comply with any sanctions that are 
absolutely explicit with serious penalties.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well- 
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Catherine Gramze



MTC-00019547

From: Leonard N Small
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree with the proposed settlement. It would, 
effectively, reward Microsoft by seeding one of the few markets they 
don't already own with their own software. This is not a punishment 
to them for their illegal practices. It is something they would 
dearly love to do on their own. The concept of funding 
underprivileged schools is a good one, but only if Microsoft's 
contribution is in hardware only. The software should come from the 
open source community. This would insure that future upgrades to the 
software could be made at a minimal cost, and would not lock the 
schools into the current costly Microsoft upgrade treadmill. Having 
had to pay for unwanted MS operating systems preloaded on PCs, only 
to have to wipe it out to install my preferred software, I think 
it's wrong to reward MS for what has been found in a court of law to 
be illegal practices.
    Len Small
    [email protected]



MTC-00019548

From: Tim Monaghan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    If someone steals my wallet, and is brought to trial, I get my 
wallet back regardless of the verdict. If that person is convicted, 
they are subject to some sort of penalty. It punishes them for the 
past misdeed, and hopefully deters them from commiting the same 
crime again.
    Microsoft is GUILTY, and all you propose is to try to give me my 
wallet back. Microsoft entered into a conduct remedy agreement 
before. They broke it without hesitation, without regret, and most 
importantly- without consequence.
    Your current settlement proposal will do nothing to address 
Microsft's past violations of the law, and will not provide any 
significant deterence against future antitrust violations. They are 
a monopoly, and they remain a monopoly.
    Are you serving the interests of the people of this country, or 
simply paying back a promise made by President Bush when he visited 
Microsoft's headaurters in the summer of 1999?
    Regards,
    Timothy Monaghan
    North Andover, Massachusetts



MTC-00019549

From: Guybrush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:06pm


[[Page 26737]]


Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should 
become a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops 
to an acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's 
competitors is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft 
product lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    -Jeff Osborn



MTC-00019550

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is letting Microsoft off. Their programs are 
horrible and their prices are monopolistic. You have to buy updates 
to your OS so it does what is was supposed to off the shelf. Break 
them up!



MTC-00019551

From: Oliver King-Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As I understand it, I can submit comments on the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft Anti Trust case. I am certainly no 
lawyer, but I want to tell you how I see things as a software 
professional. I find the proposed settlement next to useless, and 
the government should pursue much stiffer penalties including fines 
and breaking the company up.
    I used to be a VP at Broderbund, which at the time was the 
largest consumer software company. During my tenure, there were two 
occasions where people approached me, about new product ideas. The 
ideas were original and creative. Our analysis revealed if the 
products were successful Microsoft would release a similar product 
either into Windows or Microsoft Office. At that stage the market 
would wither and make the product uneconomical. Needless to say we 
dropped the ideas fast. I am sure this happened many more times, as 
I was not the official channel through which product ideas passed.
    Microsoft's reaction to bundling the feature into an existing 
product is not rational from a shareholder point of view if the 
market is competitive. Why ``give'' away a feature that 
users are prepared to buy? They are not adding new users, as the 
product requires Windows or Office to run in the first place. The 
only reasonable explanation is they want to strongly discourage any 
company from challenging their core monopoly status which generates 
amazing profits. They use these profits to attack new markets.
    IE is a good example. Microsoft probably spent $50-100 
million a year on developing it. Innovation came fast as it competed 
with Netscape. But they apparently did this with no intention to 
make revenue? The only explanation is they were worried that Windows 
might be challenged. Now the browser market is dead. No one will pay 
for a browser, because even if a new clever one comes along, 
Microsoft will respond and provide it for free sooner or later.
    As a result to the sad list of companies that have been smashed 
by Microsoft, (DrDOS, Stacker, ...) they have intimidated other 
companies from eve n launching new products in their core space. The 
argument that consumers are winning is false. They have lost because 
the innovation and quality a competitive market space would bring in 
operating systems, word processors, and spreadsheets is now gone. No 
rational company will challenge Microsoft there. So the consumer won 
for a few years, but must now pay a heavy price.
    The software industry is different from traditional service and 
manufacturing companies. These companies tend to lose efficiency 
after reaching a certain size. This helps keep the market in 
balance, and allows mid-tier companies to challenge the leaders as 
markets shift. Software suffers few negative side effects from 
scale, and has the added advantage of having ``network'' 
effects built in.
    In short Microsoft holds a unique position. Companies fear to 
challenge it in the revenue generation areas (Windows and Office) 
and likewise they give away products like IE to dominate new 
markets. Once challengers have been stamped out, they raise prices 
(such as the new 1 year licensing scheme) and use the massive 
profits to attack new markets. Market forces seem incapable of 
stopping this.
    I believe a breakup, while drastic, would be beneficial to both 
the industry and Microsoft shareholders. Both entities would 
struggle to generate revenue, with Office frantically trying to push 
people off Windows, and the Windows group struggling to pull people 
from Office. Consumers would win as a burst of innovation floods the 
shrink wrap market space (when was the last time you saw a really 
new software product for your PC at CompUSA). Shareholders would 
gain as both companies would see revenues rise as they move to a 
more a la cart pricing structure.
    Oliver King-Smith
    President
    Tescina, Inc.
    510-713-8001



MTC-00019552

From: Tom Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is obvious to me that the decision by AOL to sue Microsoft 
for damages on its competitive loss in the browser market, is an 
attempt to regain revenue that it could not achieve in the 
marketplace. The Netscape model was based on an assumption that it 
could charge $50.00 a year, in perpetuity, to everyone in the world 
who needed a tool to browse to Internet.
    Most people don't know that the Mosaic browser was developed at 
public expense, and is the software that both Netscape and the 
Microsoft Internet Explorer are based.
    I have no sympathy with complaints of the old Netscape company, 
and even less with the current suit by AOL.
    Thomas E. Smith
    PO Box 4854
    Hagatna, GU
    USA



MTC-00019553

From: Sam Cramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to object to the proposed Microsoft settlement. As 
a practicing software engineer with approximately 20 years of 
experience, I feel confident in saying that the proposed settlement 
will do little to weaken Microsoft's illegal stranglehold on the 
desktop computer operating system and office suite market. Indeed, 
it appears that it will allow them to extend this monopoly to the 
developing ``Web Services'' market. As long as Microsoft 
has the right to change APIs and publish them in full at the same 
time that they are changed, they will always be able to build 
proprietary systems which can not be emulated by competitors. By 
narrowly defining the terms ``API'' and ``Microsoft 
Middleware'', the proposed settlement leaves Microsoft clear to 
change these APIs and keep them proprietary. No wonder the company 
is so strongly in favor of the proposed settlement!
    Sincerely,
    Sam Cramer
    996 Warwick Court
    Sunnyvale, CA 94087
    [email protected]
PS: The opinions expressed in this message are mine, and not 
necessarily those of my employer.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019554

From: Jeff Mullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having read of the proposed punitive phase of the Microsoft 
Antitrust Case, I find it totally inadequate. What is proposed is 
little more than another advertising venue for Microsoft. It is 
woefully inadequate.
    Brokered by the Bush Administration, this deal is a typical 
example of the depths to which modern conservatism has sunk. The 
regime is well-known for selling out to corporate contributors, so 
it comes as no surprise that they would not just let Microsoft off 
with a slap on the wrist, but actually come up with a 
``punishment'' that actually helps the company in question 
to INCREASE its monopoly.


[[Page 26738]]


    Give us a REAL settlement.
    Jeff Mullen



MTC-00019555

From: Darrell Rudmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    Thank you for the opportunity to write to you about the proposed 
Microsoft settlement; I see this as a good opportunity for ordinary 
folks, like myself, to have some input about a federal process such 
as this one. The events of the past year remind me that the 
uniqueness of this offer is very American in nature.
    In much the same manner, this ongoing court battle between 
Microsoft and others seems to cast light on what it is to be a 
business in America. What values do we Americans place, via our 
laws, on how businesses can behave, and when they have been shown to 
not behave properly, what measures do we take to make corrective 
action?
    I am not an expert on law or on the computer industry. I rely on 
my desktop computer to carry out jobs related to my professional 
life as graduate student becoming a social science researcher, such 
as making statistical analyses, writing papers, and some light 
programming for running experiments. I can only speak to the 
proposed settlement by stating some observations I have seen in my 
personal experience with computers: First, all of my fellow students 
and my professors use Microsoft Word by default. This overwhelmingly 
implies that they are using Microsoft Windows as well. When I 
exchange documents with other people, they assume it will be in a 
Word format. Second, the university I study at, the community 
college I part-time teach for, and most social science journals 
accept and prefer to accept Microsoft Word files for online paper 
submission. This wasn't once the case. Only about six years ago, 
whenever people arrange to exchange a file, there was some 
discussion about what format would work and what wouldn't. But not 
now. While this sounds like an improvement, like a kind of 
standardization that would help people work more easily, there have 
been two clear downsides. The Word format is proprietary; that is, 
only employees of Microsoft knows what makes up the format for a 
Word document. So as a standard proprietary format, Microsoft now 
has a level of control over both the document format and the 
applications that can be used to access it reliably, at least in the 
social sciences and likely most of academia. This seems to be the 
pattern in many computing corners.
    Committing what has been found to be illegal activity, 
Microsoft's behavior is a serious violation of American values and 
business ethics. This violation was so large in scale and pervasive, 
that the legal response cannot be simple or it will be ineffective 
as a result.
    I believe the settlement offer to be too weak. I don't have the 
expertise to say what would consitute more appropriate restitution, 
but I suspect that a settlement that would encourage a freedom of 
choice for consumers would go a long way.
    Best regards with your ruling,
Darrell Rudmann
/* Darrell Rudmann, [email protected]
Human Perception and Performance
Beckman Institute, 405 N Mathews Ave
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801
Office (217) 244-1926 o Fax (217) 244-837
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/rudmann



MTC-00019556

From: Joseph Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not a lawyer so you'll have to explain to me how forcing 
Microsoft to donate $1 billion in Windows computers, Windows 
operating systems and Windows applications, to schools (historically 
an Apple stronghold) is any kind of a punishment. What will happen 
is that cash strapped schools will look at this $1 billion windfall 
and forgo even a look at Microsofts only legit rival, Apple 
computers. This settlement actually does the exact opposite of what 
it is intended to do. It doesn't punish Microsofts monopolistic and 
unfair trade practices, it rewards it by giving it market share that 
it traditionally never had. Good job DOJ! You guys are geniuses. It 
just goes to show that if you have enough cash anything, including 
justice, is for sale in America.
    Joseph Henry
    604 Riverside Ave. Apt. 2
    Park Rapids, MN 56470
    218-732-7664
    [email protected]



MTC-00019557

From: Spike Kingsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the settlement is terrible. Nothing but a slap on 
the wrist that will end up helping the monopoly more that 
controlling it. Microsoft has been screwing users, inventors, and 
small businesses for years all under the banner of ``helping 
the consumer''. I am tired of this lie.
    Donaldson Kingsley III



MTC-00019558

From: Gary W. Shawver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I want you to know that the settlement proposed by DOJ in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case is completely inadequate. It does not 
punish Microsoft for its past bad behavior, nor does it ensure that 
Microsoft will not misbehave in the future. My two suggestions for 
improving a rather weak settlement is that no Microsoft employee 
should be part of the three-member enforcement committee and that 
non-profit, open-source software makers should get the same 
protections under the settlement as commercial software 
manufacturers.
    Sincerely,
    Gary W. Shawver



MTC-00019559

From: Steve Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a citizen and a knowledgable computer professional, is both 
my right and responsibility to comment on the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft antitrust case. The proposed settlement is wholely 
unsatisfying.
    First, the settlement's contents fail to punish or repair the 
damages, if that were even possible, caused by Microsofts years of 
abuse and ilegal conduct. It seems not to even attempt any punative 
or reparative measures. This is unacceptable.
    Second, the settlement's attempts to prevent further abuses, 
while laudable in purpose, are woefully inadequate. First of all, it 
essentially lists a prohibition of specific future actions. These 
prohibitted future actions are at best too limited, and at worst 
very ill defined. Microsoft has proved deft in the past at slipping 
along the narrow edge of legality, often finding loopholes in laws 
that were constructed too weakly or find themselves too out of date 
to really fit the regulation of a software company.
    Many of the loopholes are so obvious that it is clear even now 
how Microsoft will navigate them. The combination of these factors 
leads to one inevitable conclusion. Microsoft WILL continue to act 
anticompetitively. It is obvious first of all because no serious 
impediments have been placed in there way.
    Second of all, even if serious steps were taken to limit 
Microsoft's ability to act anticompetitively, they would disregard 
the law, as they have in the past. By failing to adequately punish 
Microsoft's prior transgressions, the justice system has delivered 
them the message that they can act in blatant disregard to the law 
and the public interest without reprisal.
    It is also important to consider how this affects the national 
public good. The arguments to the affect that Microsoft's 
stranglehold on various sectors of the software market impede 
general progress have been stated so many times that may seem to 
lose meaning, but they are nonetheless valid and important.
    It also goes without saying that it is in the public interest 
for the justice system to present the image of dealing justice. It 
is necessary to be seen punishing wrong-doers and helping the 
victimized. Any time that the justice system is seen publicly 
failing to deal fair justice, it damages the nation.
    One other point of extremely important note is the impact of 
this settlement on the nation's critical infrastructure. For obvious 
reasons, the nation has taken an interest in protecting such vital 
technological infrastructure as the roads, the railroads, seaports 
and airports, the electric power grid, the phone system, and, 
recently, the internet. One of the most frightening abilities that 
Microsoft posesses, and has demonstrated, is the ability to use its 
influence over one market to gain control of another only loosely 
related market. Currently many of Microsoft's very flawed 
technologies are spreading like a 

[[Page 26739]]


cancer into the internet. Recent 
events have showed an alarming potential for damage to the internet 
by such a trend. One rogue computer could never hope to bring the 
internet to its knees, to do such a thing would require a massive 
coordinated attack from such a large number of computers as to 
represent a significant fraction of the internet as a whole. 
Microsoft's software is and always has been weak and insecure. The 
potential damage that could be caused by a massive attack from 
countless compromised Microsoft Windows computers is horrifying.
    Take, for example, the recent CodeRed2 virus. This virus was 
designed to attack a weakness in Microsoft web servers and, after 
siezing control of the host computer, launch the attack again from 
the victimized computer.
    Fortunately, any computer not running a microsoft webserver was 
imune to such an attack. Imagine, however, that the virus had been 
made not to only re-attack Microsoft web servers, but rather to have 
halted the internet as a whole. As I stated before, it is possible 
for an extremely large number of computers working in concert to 
effectively hold the internet hostage. Can you imagine if a 
relatively simple but malignant virus, using every windows computer 
on the internet as its base of attack, litteraly stopped the 
internet? Allowing Microsoft to leverage control of the pc market to 
gain market control of the internet as a whole would be a disaster 
to our nation's critical infrastructure. It is also one of 
Microsoft's current strategic goals. We cannot allow them to achieve 
it.
    In summary, the judgement must be more punative, and the 
judgement must do a better job of preventing Microsoft's continued 
trampling of fair business tactics.
    Steven Stone
    Lead Technical Architect
    AthenaHealth, Inc.



MTC-00019560

From: Czeekh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I realize that you must be getting many e-mails on the subject 
of the MS settlement, but please read this. Unlike many that have 
likely e-mailed you, I not a professional. I am instead part of 
America's youth. You may think that the MS decision will only affect 
the Computer Industry, but it will also affect the future of 
everyone who uses a PC. I have some experience with Linux (an open 
source alternative to the Windows operating system) and I have found 
it to be equal to Windows, if not better. If you allow MS to get off 
with a ``slap on the wrist'' they may very well demolish 
such operating systems as Linux. If you really want to stop MS's 
monopoly, you won't let them get off so easily. This is because if 
they do they will have more money and resources to drive competitors 
such as Apple, Linux, and UNIX. The future of the world may be 
sealed in your decision. Everyone could end up having to use 
Windows, for everything. The reason that I don't care for Windows is 
that it is incredibly ``buggy'' and in many cases 
technically inferior to competitors.
    Let me give you an example of what MS's Windows ME (Millennium 
Edition) did to one of my teachers: My teacher was at home, using MS 
Word (note that it was an MS program) and suddenly his computer 
locked up for unknown reasons. He tried everything that he knew to 
do and couldn't get the computer to return to normal. As a result, 
he restarted his computer. When he did, his computer said that it 
needed to run a Scandisk (I am sure you have seen that). He let it 
run. It took two hours to run the Scandisk, it normally takes 
between one and two minutes. Windows had reformatted his hard disk 
drive. All of his data was lost, everything. He had done nothing 
wrong, and the program that he was running when it locked up was a 
program made by MS itself. This is why I say Windows is inferior.
    Now, do you want this program to be what people are suck with 
FOREVER. I know that MS will always have competitors, but letting 
them ``off the hook'' will simply allow them more money to 
destroy their competitors. Is that the American Way? Are we so 
dependent on ``Social Darwinism'' that we can allow this 
to happen? Are you? Remember that people like me and others of 
America's future will be deeply affected by your decision. 
Computer's are the future, but one single operating system is not. 
Thank you very much for taking time to read this.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Fisher
    Manilla, Indiana



MTC-00019561

From: Dennis Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It may concern, I object to the proposed settlement in 4 
primary areas.
    1) The agreement provides to little in the way of punishment for 
past misdeeds.
    2) The oversight of Microsoft's future behavior is weak in 
enforcement powers and too limited in scope.
    3) Microsoft is given broad discretion in asserting intellectual 
property claims to exclude information about file formats and 
communication interfaces.
    4) The agreement appears to be specific drafted to allow 
Microsoft many opportunities to exclude members of the free software 
movement. To quote Ralph Nades open letter ``under J.1 and J.2 
of the proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical 
information from third parties on the grounds that Microsoft does 
not certify the ``authenticity and viability of its business 
'' Microsoft has repeatedly stated that it considers programers 
like the SAMBA and LINUX kernel programers ``a cancer'' 
Which I belive they intend to include as a ``non-viable 
business'' Microsoft is still practicing exclusionary tactics.
    Thank You
    Dennis Thompson



MTC-00019562

From: Noah Payton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I believe the The PFJ fails to prohibit intentional 
incompatibilities historically used by Microsoft, among other 
issues. I find the tremendously limited scope of this settlement to 
be an affront to the purpose of the laws that have been violated.
    Sincerely,
    Noah Payton



MTC-00019563

From: David Rupilius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    In my opinion the Proposed Final Judgment, as written, allows 
and encourages significant anti-competitive practices to continue. I 
believe that it therefore is not in the public interest, and should 
not be adopted without substantial revision to address these 
problems. Specifically, no part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to 
release any information about file formats, even though undocumented 
Microsoft file formats form part of the ``Applications Barrier 
to Entry'', as described in the Court's Findings of Fact.
    Sincerely,
    David K. Rupilius, Germany, Systems Engineer
    (U.S. citizen)



MTC-00019564

From: parny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It gives 
Microsoft too much liberty to continue its current tactics and 
practices. Also the enforcement body is weak and I know Microsoft 
will get its way like it has in the past. I have been looking to buy 
a laptop and none of the big companies sell one without a version of 
Windows. I assume that this is because of the bully tactics it plays 
with OEM's. Microsoft needs restrictions on it to cultivate a 
healthy software business environment. I am tired of paying premium 
prices for mediocre software. Open source exceeds Microsoft in many 
instances. The sad thing is security is one of them.
    Curtis Lunt



MTC-00019565

From: Vincent Meyer, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    This settlement is a bad idea. It does not address in any 
meaningful way Microsoft's stranglehold on the industry..
    Vincent Meyer, MD
    Naperville, IL



MTC-00019566

From: Michael Wharton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern,


[[Page 26740]]


    It is a serious concern of mine when it becomes apparent that 
the government, in its ever-vigilant quest to abrogate individual 
rights, targets the good for being the good. Whatever the flaws in 
Microsoft's Windows operating system, it has given me the tools to 
enrich my life beyond what I could have conceived without it. I have 
seen it demonstrated time and time again as being the superior 
product on the market, superior in terms of user-friendliness and 
ease of adaptability.
    I shall like to say that I utterly resent the idea that I am 
being characterized as some kind of victim, in the sense of being 
exploited by Microsoft. I refuse to accept that you are speaking for 
me. I am the public that you are portraying as helpless. I am the 
consumer that you portray as not sufficiently intelligent enough to 
decide how to spend the money I have earned. I do not believe it is 
the government's place to tell me on what products to spend my 
money. That is exactly what the government is doing in its 
persecution of Microsoft.
    For the sake of honesty, please do not continue your 
disingenuous rant that by assaulting Microsoft you are protecting 
me, the consumer. You are not. This whole thing started because some 
of Microsoft's weaker competitors saw that they could not match 
Microsoft's quality and decided they could only flourish if 
Microsoft was put under the gun. The Antitrust Division has filled 
that request remarkably. As a matter of principle I do not believe 
that failed business ventures such as the above mentioned 
competitors should determine the rules by which markets are run. I 
hold that the idea of a successful business being a threat in any 
context to me personally or to the marketplace in general is a 
ludicrous assertion that could only come from some dusty Marx-
infected professor or intellectual. It is a matter of historical 
fact that when a government intervenes in the economy, the eventual 
downfall of that economy is the result. In no state, past or 
present, can there be seen an exception to this. When that 
intervention takes the shape of an axe poised to cut down the ultra-
successful, I ask you, what could possibly be the desired result?
    There is a disturbing trend in this country, one that's been 
present for most of the last century. That trend is the abrogation 
of property rights. The products and services produced by Microsoft 
are their property. They have the right to make and distribute it as 
they see fit. In no proper sense of the concept 
``property'' is there an iota of justification for the 
government to be interfering here; in a wider context, that goes for 
every area of economic endeavor.
    Please stop your persecution of Microsoft. It is a totally 
unjustified and unjustifiable act of treason against the founding 
principles of this great nation.
    Sincerely,
    Michael S. Wharton



MTC-00019567

From: mwebb-efn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    re: public comment on Microsoft settlement:
    from: a computer/internet user
    The proposed is so inadequate that the word ``farce'' 
would apply were it not a tragedy.
    sincerely,
    Michael Webb



MTC-00019568

From: E Manes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:11 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I'm writing to you as I was informed that I could express my 
feelings about the Microsoft (MS) anti-trust suit. I have been a 
user of MS products all of my computing life which means since 1992. 
I have seen the development of Windows 2, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, 
Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 95 SR-2, Windows 98, Windows 98 
SR-1, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millenium, Windows 2000, 
and now Windows XP. There is one common theme that I have seen over 
the many years of development.
    Microsoft will incorporate the features of a popularly used 
existing product into their future operating system. I have seen 
this behavior occurring increasingly more now than in previous years 
and it is incredibly obvious that those that founded the 
technologies are left to struggle in a hostile environment. I will 
list examples:
    Netscape: Enough said !! Actually, no it wasn't. MS developed a 
decent browser in Internet Explorer (IE) when they adhered to the 
world wide web consortium's outlines. They packed IE with their OS 
and people no longer needed to download Netscape (an inconvenience 
but proper since they were the ones that fathered the idea and 
developed it). It wasn't until they integrated it with their OS and 
then lied about the OS's dependence that it became obvious that 
there was something wrong about the way that they did business. They 
then created software packages that created webpages in such a 
manner that they would not be viewed properly to those using 
Netscape so people are forced into using IE. The VERY SAD part with 
all this is that Netscape continues to develop with the ideals of 
the world wide web consortium ideals and have lost any chance of 
making a comeback. They continue to develop a software package that 
adhere's stictly to the publicly available consortium outlines. 
Their web-page creation program continues to create web pages that 
can be read and interpreted properly by ANY browser unlike Microsoft 
Frontpage.
    MSN Messenger: AOL created a great program that allowed people 
to communicate with each other over the internet. Microsoft decided 
to create their own version that conflicted with AOL buddies. This 
left people in either camp stranded. It got to the point where they 
were hacking each others code to enable functionality. Microsoft 
then added this software to Windows Millenium as an option where the 
user could disable it easily enough. Windows XP throws MSN Messenger 
in your face every chance it gets and won't stop nagging no matter 
how many times it is told to buzz off. I'm not sympathetic to either 
of the software packages but I have noticed the frustrations of 
users of either software package. It is easy enough to download AOL 
IM and install it but I'm sure that there will be conflicts with MSN 
Messenger while it continues to pop up uninvited. This will leave 
people with a frustrated view of AOL's IM and I'm sure over time 
they will switch to MSN Messenger. I strongly believe that this is 
NOT a necessity of the OS and should be left out. The user should be 
allowed to install the software of their choice. ZIP Utility: 
Microsoft has now (as of Windows XP) included a zipping utility as 
part of their OS. In the past users would typically download a 
shareware software package to perform these same operations. This 
will limit the number of people that download a developed piece of 
software. It is unfortunate that Microsoft is allowed to incorporate 
whatever piece of software that they would like and package it with 
their OS. I feel for these software developers that poured countless 
hours of programming time into their software just to see the 
technology incorporated into MS's OS. This does not create a 
competitive environment and limits the creativity of programmers.
    Media Player: Real Player was the dominant player in streaming 
media and really developed this area. Microsoft then created their 
version of streaming video and at first it would not play Real media 
streams. I'm not so sure these days but you can bet that if it does 
now that it will be dropped later once MS takes a majority share of 
the market. There was a point where Real Audio was the definitive 
answer to video streaming and no longer is. This is very similar to 
what happened to Netscape.
    MS is currently up to their old tricks with MP3 files. MP3 flies 
have been popularly used for about 7 years and MS saw this and 
created their own compression algorithm and I'll argue that although 
their compression size IS smaller, the quality is not their. Anyhow, 
MS then decided that their most recent Media Player would NOT play 
or create MP3s. They claimed that this was due to legal concerns but 
I don't believe it for a minute as there is technology available to 
prevent this from occurring. Fortunately, the market demanded that 
they incorporate MP3s and so they did BUT the algorithm is crippled 
and thus creates very poor MP3 files. This will force people to add 
another piece of software to their computer OR choose the simpler 
route which is just use MS's WMA format. Video Editing: Since video 
editing has become so popular, MS has incorporated a video editing 
package into their software suite when there are a variety of 
inexpensive suites that come with any video recorder purchased. I 
can't see a reason why MS has to include their own as a default. 
Their editor is basic and there is still currently reason to 
purchase a professional suite but it will only be a matter of time 
until MS improves their offering resulting in another market of 
software disappearing. It already eclipses the market for those that 
created an entry level package, which were included with the video 
recorders. That market has all but disappeared. CD-Burning: 
Microsoft has included with Windows XP their own CD burning software 
algorithm. 

[[Page 26741]]


Again, there are 4 big companies that provide this 
availability at a nominal cost but most users won't bother due to 
convenience and so these companies will eventually reduce in number.
    Interesting Note: Microsoft sells their Office Suite for over 
$450 which includes MS Word, MS Excel, MS Access, MS Outlook 
Express, MS Powerpoint. They also sell a suite to the home user for 
$100 that includes MS Word, a watered down version of MS Excel, a 
watered down version of MS Access, Microsoft Money, Microsoft 
Picture it Publishing, Microsoft Encarta, and Microsoft Trips & 
Streets. The home version of the suite is valued well over $350 if 
purchased separately. Why do you think that this might be? This 
gives the home user no reason to investigate a financial management 
package, a photo-editing package, an encyclopedia package, or a trip 
planning package. This is further proof of their improper business 
tactics. They are selling the software at a sub-market prices to 
increase market share. This will get people to continue purchasing 
MS software as they will run into file compatibility problems if 
they try to use another package.
    The file compatibility problems are due to the fact that MS does 
not release the details of how their software works to the 
programming community. They have the consumer any which way that you 
look at it.
    I could could continue to list other occurrences but I must get 
back to my studies. I really hope that someone looks at this note 
and reads it in it's entirety.
    Summary: Microsoft's strategy seems to be that they will 
incorporate (copy) a technology to the point where users are 
comfortable with using it but then they make it proprietary such 
that you are forced to continue using only their package. I have 
seen this with their media player, zipping utility, Internet 
Explorer, Outlook Express, MSN Messenger. I find it incredibly hard 
to believe that these smaller software companies manage to adhere to 
some standard and that their files are properly read and used by 
other problems but that MS cannot. I believe that this is 
intentional as I have seen it work flawlessly with other software 
packages. Microsoft claims that they are doing this to give the user 
a greater out-of-box experience. Don't believe it !! Nine times out 
of ten their technology is subpar but people use it because it is 
convenient.
    My solution would be to either, 1) Force MS to remove all of 
their incorporated programs and make them available for installing 
ALONG with the available packages. Let the user choose which 
software package they prefer. It's difficult to fathom that this 
would be more costly to MS than their current package. I also 
believe that this should be overshadowed by a 3rd party committee 
and that MS should be fined grossly for each violation of the 
INTENTION of the organization.
    2) Release their source code to the programming community so 
that they have a chance to promote their products without already 
being crippled by the compatibility issues due to the MS closed-
nature of their code. I would expect that about 85% of users are 
concerned about file compatibility when considering an alternative 
software package.
    For the life of me, I can't possibly believe that those that are 
responsible for coming to a decision on this matter could see it any 
other way. Microsoft has and continues (more than ever now) to 
stifle creativity and development of programs with their prominence. 
As a user of their products for many years I can recognize the 
trend. I'm not sure that those involved in the case have the same 
lengthy experience with MS software or have been able to work with 
the MS OS offerings through the years, such as I have.
    Microsoft is doing the OPPOSITE of reducing their shady business 
practices. I see a marked increase in their Windows XP and this is 
WITH an anti-trust trial under way. Warning: MS has been known to 
unethically influence polls and e-mails by creating a software 
program that votes FOR MS so please examine your PRO MS e-mails 
along with your ANTI MS e-mails to ensure reliability.



MTC-00019569

From: Sam Wynn Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is too limited in scope and can be too 
easily outmoded/outdated with respect to technology and/or software 
revisioning this ``final judgment'' is not in the best 
interest of consumers



MTC-00019570

From: Dixon Teter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/23/02
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I type this on a system using Windows 2000 and in the Microsoft 
Word processing program. I have just picked up my e-mail and shopped 
via the Internet using Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Outlook 
Express. Why Microsoft? Because they are for my money the best 
products I can buy. Microsoft products save me time and money. I was 
not forced to use Microsoft's products. There were and are other 
choices. I looked at other competing brands. I chose Microsoft for 
value.
    Microsoft is a shining example of the ``American'' 
success story. A self-made man makes brilliant products and becomes 
wealthy IS the American way. It is only possible under a free 
American system where government protects the fundamental right to 
private property.
    The suit against Microsoft reverses that by attempting to 
forcibly seize Microsoft's property. This suit seeks to allow 
failing businesses that could not compete in the marketplace to use 
``pull'' bought under the guise of campaign contributions 
to bring down a more successful business. The antitrust laws are 
nothing more than means for poor competitors to seek the ruin of 
their betters and as such are an ever present threat to freedom. 
Antitrust laws are the result of corruption and bring economic ruin. 
There are examples of this around the world. The suit against IBM is 
a classic example of woeful wrong that was a tremendous waste of the 
taxpayers money and an enormous drain on the resources of a great 
company which could have been put to better use.
    What would we have now if Microsoft had not had to waste 
hundreds of millions of dollars on this wrongful suit? Quite 
simply-ever more and even better products and services. Great 
businesses and those who found them are the very heart and soul of 
the United States. They must be protected, not attacked. They should 
be praised not damned. They must be free to compete then we, the 
American consumer wins.
    Sincerely,
    Dixon Teter, Ph.D.
    CC:[email protected]@ 
inetgw,letters@capitalis.



MTC-00019571

From: Jonathan Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please hurry up and settle the case. I don't think it is in 
anyone's best interest to continue.
    Thank you,
    Jonathan Johnson



MTC-00019572

From: root
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My wife and I both agree that the proposed settlement is not in 
the best interest of the United States.
    Paul S. & Germiane K. Mitchell
    3564 Union Shool Road
    Chester,Il. 62233



MTC-00019573

From: Gabriel Morales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I have read the Proposed Final Judgment for the Microsoft 
Antitrust trial, and I believe that it is best characterized by the 
phrase ``too little too late''. I am not a legal expert, 
but all this proposal seems to be saying to Microsoft is ``Hey, 
don't do this again.'' Where is the ``justice'' in 
this? What of all the damage Microsoft has done to the competition? 
Please don't let Microsoft get away with a slap on the wrist! It is 
not simply a matter of punishment, but rather a matter of assurance 
that Microsoft will not continue to threaten freedom in the industry 
and dominate the market through illegal, unethical and uncompetitive 
ways.
    I favor a split up of Microsoft, as proposed earlier. Only 
splitting up Microsoft into at least three or four companies could a 
assure the breakup of this illegal monopoly. But, I do not believe 
that the current proposal is sufficient and as a concerned citizen, 
I am not happy with it and I am asking you to reconsider.
    Gabriel Morales



MTC-00019574

From: Scott Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:17pm


[[Page 26742]]


Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer with 20 years'' experience, 
currently supporting a product which operates in several 
environments, including Microsoft and Unix operating systems.
    The proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is unsatisfactory in a number 
of ways. Particularly troubling are the large number of exceptions 
to its enforcement provisions, which appear likely to block needed 
remedies. Given Microsoft's existing monopoly, aggressive business 
tactics, and past violation of antitrust laws, a proper remedy would 
provide more than enforcement of just the provisions which Microsoft 
was found to violate in the past. Yet part III (Prohibited Conduct) 
deals primarily with those past practices, in an industry which is 
steadily changing in ways shaped by Microsoft itself. In this 
context, I note the provisions of IV.A.3 and IV.B.9 which hobble the 
Plaintiffs and the TC so that, should the Plaintiffs receive 
information as a result of the PFJ of further violations of 
antitrust laws which happen to be beyond the scope part III, the 
information cannot be disclosed.
    This appears to lend Microsoft some real protection from 
prosecution by the U.S. DOJ for future antitrust violations. The 
open standards which lubricate the software industry (for example, 
HTML) have been increasingly usurped by the tactics of powerful 
corporations such as Microsoft. This is the environment in which I 
work, and seek to develop useful products. The case against 
Microsoft held the hope of cleaning up this business environment, 
but the proposed Final Judgment is not up to the task.
    Prescott K. Turner, Jr.
    13 Burning Tree Rd.
    Natick, MA 01760
    [email protected]
    -
    Scott Turner
    [email protected] http://www.billygoat.org/pkturner



MTC-00019575

From: gcharles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Dept. of Justice
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    I am writing to voice my objections to the proposed settlement. 
I do not think that this settlement in any way punishes Microsoft 
for having blatantly abused monopoly power, or for disregarding the 
provisions of the previous agreement with the federal government. I 
have several issues with the currently proposed settlement:
    The agreement fails to provide any penalty for Microsoft's past 
actions. This appears to show that Microsoft is beyond punishment 
because of its extraordinary political and economic power. What 
antitrust? With over 90 percent of the desktop operating system 
share they have the single largest market share held by any company 
in any significant industry in the last 50+ years. Microsoft used 
many unethical procedures to extend their monopoly. Most involved 
ways of punishing other companies should those companies dare to not 
comply with the Microsoft system. Microsoft should not be able to 
keep all the fruits of their illegal behavior. The penalties need to 
be a deterrent to future misbehavior of both Microsoft and other 
companies in their quest for market dominance. The lack of penalty 
for the financial windfall they've accrued is analogous to the court 
telling a bank robber that he shouldn't rob any more banks but that 
he can keep the proceeds for all previous successful heists. The 
proposed oversight or compliance mechanism is virtually powerless. 
Microsoft's failure to abide by the spirit or the letter of the 
previous agreement shows that the proposed weak oversight system is 
inadequate. Indeed, the proposed mechanism for dispute resolution 
and/or compliance with the agreement embraces many of the worst 
features of such systems, operating in secrecy, lacking 
independence, and open to undue influence from Microsoft.
    This is especially troublesome when Microsoft's current actions 
extend to other areas, especially their effort to dominate the 
Internet. They have entered into many agreements with other cable/
telecom/internet firms to become a powerful force in this area. They 
can easily use secrecy of protocols for their software to force 
others to adopt their products. One requirement should be that 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. Another 
requirement should be that 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. Some of the provisions in the 
settlement give Microsoft too much leeway to claim a security 
concern while in essence hiding some of the technical information 
needed for others to provide a competing alternative (Sections J.1 
and J.2).
    With regard to secrecy of protocols and APIs, the openly 
published letter from Ralph Nader listing his objections to the 
settlement includes specifically noted the objections to such 
secrecy. He specifically noted the detrimental effects on the 
``Free Software'' movement, and discussed Microsoft's 
current and continuing offensive against the ``Free 
Software'' movement. I would like to support the objections 
raised in that open letter. Microsoft is moving against Linux and 
other competing software and will use any excuse for secrecy of 
protocols to undermine any competition. The well reported efforts of 
senior Microsoft executive, esp. Gates, Allchin, and Ballmer, to 
undercut any potential for other people and firms to move to Linux 
is indicative of the concern about the availability of free access 
to what must be public protocols.
    It is important to note that Microsoft has been found guilty of 
abusing monopoly power. Some changes proposed in the settlement are 
acceptable. Microsoft should not be allowed to differentiate price 
to different customers, period. They have abused this particular 
mechanism repeatedly to ``punish'' those firms that didn't 
fall in line with their wishes. Also all vendors should be permitted 
to include any competing software, including alternative operating 
systems in a dual or multiboot configuration.
    This will increase the potential for market penetration of Linux 
and other systems, and may eventuate in viable operating system 
alternatives. I need to run engineering programs that are available 
under a variety of ``free'' licenses. When I looked to buy 
a new computer recently I could not get a dual boot computer from 
any low cost vendor. They repeatedly noted that they could not 
provide dual boot machines under their current Microsoft license. 
This means that I must buy a machine from a custom vendor. While I 
support these vendors in principle, this does mean that the cost to 
me is several hundred dollars incremental cost over the equivalent 
from one of the low cost vendors. This differential is entirely due 
the restrictive Microsoft license.
    My name is:
George Charles
My address is:
14 Annesley Drive
Glen Mills, Pa 19342



MTC-00019576

From: Joe Piolunek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:13pm
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has 
been converted to attachment.]
    US Department of Justice:
    I am a US citizen who wishes to register an objection to the 
more microsoft-friendly settlement plan in the MICROSOFT(R)-vs-doj 
antitrust proceeding. I have some further comments regarding the 
proceeding. First, am not professionally associated with any 
computing or advertising firm, and have not received any 
compensation for sending this message. I am an avid computer user 
and hobbyist program developer. I read technical articles related to 
computer operating systems, software and microsoft, and have formed 
an opinion regarding them, which I would like to share with you. 
This is a time of great upheaval in the computing industry. Many, if 
not most, companies in the industry are suffering financial trouble. 
A major reason for this is that the desktop computer market is 
nearing saturation, and development of the most prevalent operating 
system (ms-windows, by far) provided with new computers has reached 
the point where its functionality can not be greatly improved. It 
already does almost everything home and corporate desktop users want 
their computer to do. Because computers can have a life span of at 
least ten years, the standard industry practice has and still 
involves using a variety of means to deliberately degrade and/or 
destroy the usefulness of existing systems and products in order to 
sell new ones, regardless of whose property is being 

[[Page 26743]]


degraded or destroyed. That practice is likely to continue if 
microsoft remains the major force in the industry, and may 
continue anyway. It probably has been a useful policy for national 
security and other reasons, but has been expensive for computer 
users. For many users, the cumulative personal cost of that policy 
is enough for them to say ``That's enough. I don't need to buy 
another computer.''
    In the mid to long term, use of microsoft's computer software 
products will diminish. Microsoft may become little more than a 
massive marketing machine attempting to sell the equivalent of flint 
arrowheads to modern soldiers. That time is almost here. Thousands 
of (mostly professional) software developers from all around the 
world have been working together to create a new and much improved 
software system that they hope will be allowed to take the place of 
microsoft products. Unless world governments band together to do the 
unthinkable and unconscionable, the new system will eventually 
displace microsoft and its products regardless of any new laws 
created or court decisions rendered. The new system is called 
``open-source'' or ``Free Software*'', which 
includes the Linux / GNU operating system, and other products. 
Before microsoft is finally displaced, it will use every tactic it 
can to destroy (if attempts at control fail) products, companies, 
and organizations before they can become truly competitive. In my 
opinion, if microsoft's behavior is not effectively changed (by 
government or court-it will not change itself), it will make 
all-out use of monopolistic practices (legal or not) to the 
detriment of many other companies and persons in the computing 
industry, and to end users.
    National Security Concerns
    In my opinion, microsoft's software products are unfit and 
unsafe for use on any internet-connected computer containing 
sensitive information, or any laptop or notebook computer containing 
sensitive information that can be carried into unsecured areas. Its 
products have been a continuing security nightmare, and there can 
never be any reasonable assurance that hidden problems have been 
corrected. In closed-source operating systems such as microsoft's, 
no law or authority can prevent hidden flaws from being exploited by 
enemies.
    The Importance of a Free Market
    The authorities currently controlling national policy claim to 
promote free market conditions, but they are doing the opposite in 
this case. A ``free market'' is just that-free. If 
any entity, whether a government or a business, moves into a 
marketplace and takes control to the extent that microsoft has, then 
that market can no longer be called free. To use an analogy, suppose 
a local flea market has been operating freely, with individual 
vendors bringing their own tables to set up to sell goods from 
wherever there is space. Along comes a monopolistic organization 
that tells all the vendors that they will now have to rent space and 
tables from the monopolist; that they can only sell the monopolist's 
shiny and popular but overpriced, identical, and unpredictably 
dangerous wares; and that they must agree to publically support the 
system. The vendors, and especially the monopolist, would profit 
(for a while) from the lack of freedom, but to the buying public, 
the value of the marketplace would be greatly decreased.
    Organized Crime
    Microsoft exhibits many of the characteristics of an organized 
crime gang. It continually involved its organization in illegal 
activity, as determined by the US justice system, which only 
examined a tiny portion of microsoft's questionable actions. To me, 
microsoft appears to have recently escalated its illegal 
(monopolistic) activities.
    ``Settle''?? with Microsoft??
    Should a common bank-robber be allowed to determine how much of 
the loot he gets to keep? The DOJ needs to show some responsibility 
in this case. By that I mean responsibility to humanity or at least 
US citizens, not responsibility to those few who contributed to a 
presidential campaign.
    Microsoft illegally (as determined by the court) and very 
obviously (as determined by me) holds a monopoly on operating 
systems as used in desktop computers. It also appears to be 
frantically seeking to extend its monopoly into other areas of 
computing. I strongly feel that microsoft needs to be stopped, and 
stopped immediately. The Proposed ``Settlement'' The 
proposed settlement is like giving your future to someone who stole 
your past. It will promote microsoft's monopoly, not provide a 
remedy.
    A More Proper ``Settlement'':
    1. End microsoft's corporate status. Microsoft's corporate 
officers have been allowed to hide behind laws that protect them, 
grinning like cheshire cats, while MS is allowed to conduct illegal 
activities as a corporation. A proper remedy would see to it that 
microsoft loses or gives up its Certificate of Incorporation, and 
that they do not re-incorporate.
    2. Order that ms-windows can be resold, regardless of license. 
Let end-users remove unwanted microsoft products from their computer 
and sell them if a buyer can be found.
    3. Order microsoft to distribute free alternatives to its 
products. Prevent microsoft from offering any of its products for 
sale as disks, for download, or installation on new computers unless 
the end-user is provided with a free set of disks for any current 
official version of any open-source non-microsoft-affiliated 
operating system, and a free license to use and copy them for 
redistribution. Make this retroactive for any installation of ms-
windows where microsoft promoted it as a means to store sensitive 
information while connected to the internet, or any laptop/notebook 
computer that was originally sold as being suitable for carrying 
into unsecured areas while containing both sensitive information and 
microsoft products.
    4. Force microsoft ``sponsored'' comments to be 
identified as such. Microsoft is actively attempting to destroy 
Linux, and is fairly open about its intent, but not its tactics. One 
of its more offensive tactics appears to be ``sponsoring'' 
the mass posting of anti-Linux comments on popular internet 
discussion sites. The common name for the practice is 
``astroturfing'' (phony grass roots), and is usually 
carded out by public relations companies for paying clients. It is 
the equivalent of hidden, undisclosed advertising and must be 
stopped. Microsoft has also been found (by state Attourneys General) 
to create fraudulent ``comments'' which they have sent to 
government agencies, and which are obviously meant to obstruct 
justice in some way. Due to the recent escalation of commissioned 
pro-microsoft posting on internet discussion sites, I suspect that 
the DOJ address I'm sending this to is being inundated with 
similarly commissioned pro-microsoft messages. The intent of those 
commissioning the messages would be to obstruct justice. The 
practice must be ended, and not just in this case.
    5. Bar microsoft from being involved in the technical training 
of Judges. Obviously, Judges need to be minimally competent in the 
details of the case they are hearing. I am not very familiar with 
this issue, but my assumption is that professional technical 
training would be provided to a Judge that requires it. If during 
the training program the Judge is deliberately misled by being fed 
incorrect technical information, it could easily lead to a 
misjudgment at the bench, which may be taken as bias by observers.
    6. Assist open-source Free Software development. Open-source 
free software will become the foundation of computing in the future. 
At some point, the commercial software industry will have to find a 
new role or it will disappear. A forward-thinking policy would be to 
assist the transition whenever possible, rather than contribute to 
protracted chaos by fighting it. Since microsoft has been found to 
be taking economic advantage through monopolistic practices, a 
proper ``settlement'' would include microsoft being 
required to provide funding for Linux (its current target for 
destruction) development through a prominent noncommercial 
organization that supports the ideals of the open-source Free 
Software movement.
    With diminished expectations and too little reason for respect, 
Joe Piolunek



MTC-00019577

From: Carlos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Open the source code and enjoin Microsoft to compete against the 
various manifestations of this de facto standard that will arise 
from the demise of its ubiquitous hold on the personal computing 
experience.
    Juan Carlos Toth
    Assistant Professor of Multimedia
    San Diego
    Mesa College
    3375 Camino del Rio South
    San Diego, CA 92108



MTC-00019578

From: Alex Morando
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the US government team pursuing the DOJ-Microsoft anti-
trust case to work towards appropriate penalties towards a 


[[Page 26744]]


convicted monopolist for their criminal and unethical behavior. 
The current penalties and remedies currently proposed by the DOJ 
are not enough to ensure competition and prevent future abuses of 
monopoly power by Microsoft. The actions of the company since Judge 
Jackson's ruling was overturned clearly shows their arrogance-Internet Explorer is now even more deeply integrated into Windows XP, smaller 
companies have been purchased to prevent competitive products from 
being brought to market, and their .NET and Passport technologies 
have placed the future of the Internet in jeopardy.
    Not once has Microsoft made any concessions nor shown any 
willingness to self-police themselves to even partially address DOJ 
concerns. Their actions in the related civil case is further proof 
of their continued attempts to extend their monopoly to other 
fields, including the Internet, the game industry, mobile 
communications, education, and security.
    Those of us in the computer community know that the damages 
caused by Microsoft's monopoly has far surpassed that of any other 
company in history. Enron's collapse is small compared to the 
consequences of an ongoing and potentially permanent Microsoft 
monopoly.
    I don't want a bleak digital future dominated and controlled by 
Microsoft. As a web site administrator, I have seen the problems 
caused by that company in their quest for monopoly power. The legal 
system moves slowly compared to Internet time, but a strong remedy 
and decision against Microsoft would open up the doors to 
competition and innovation. Those are two qualities that have never 
been exhibited by Microsoft, despite their press releases and 
advertising campaigns. Please encourage the competition and 
innovation that make our free enterprise system great-ensure 
that a predatory company like Microsoft can do no more harm nor 
threaten our future. You have my support.
    Sincerely,
    Alex Morando
    Web site administrator
    Rowland Heights, CA 91748



MTC-00019579

From: bob@grumpydog consulting.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want you to know how much I object to the proposed settlement 
regarding Microsoft being a monopoly and using that monopoly to 
unfairly eliminate competition. I'll just quote Russell Pavlicek's 
article from InfoWorld.com, as he's summed it as well or better than 
I can. I hope you will read it and understand how this is not only 
NOT punishment, and NOT just a slap on the wrist for MS, but 
actually a boon to them.
    Thanks for your time,
    Robert Forgey
    Valley Center, CA 92082
    RUSSELL PAVLICEK: ``The Open Source'' from 
InfoWorld.com, Wednesday, January 23, 2002
    I'VE RECEIVED A number of requests to address the pending (as of 
this writing) settlement of the civil anti-trust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. Under the pending agreement, Microsoft will be obligated 
to provide hardware and software to thousands of underfunded school 
districts across the country. The logic, if you can call it that, is 
that such schools could benefit greatly from receiving the 
technology they lack.
    Undeniably, there is an emotionally compelling case for this. A 
gigantic company, found guilty of doing wrong, is ordered to help 
the underprivileged. ``We need to do it for the 
children,'' cry the politicos. ``Think of the 
children!''
    ``For the children.'' That's the phrase politicians in 
Washington use to justify an action so irrational that it cannot be 
justified any other way. How can I properly characterize this 
solution? It is like a court ordering a convicted drug dealer to 
give out more free samples of heroin to underprivileged children to 
ensure that their poverty does not deprive them of the opportunity 
to become addicted. Sure, public classrooms need more technology. 
And it is especially important that children who don't have as many 
opportunities in life get assistance. But that is not adequate 
justification for assigning the fox to guard the hen house.
    Personally, I like the counterproposal put forward by Red Hat: 
Let Microsoft donate money for computing resources for underfunded 
schools, but let those donations go toward hardware only; then 
populate those machines with open-source software. Why open source? 
Consider the future: What will the schools do when they need to 
upgrade? If you give schools Microsoft software, they will be caught 
in the endless upgrade cycle that has characterized life in the 
Microsoft world. Those upgrades will cost money, money that these 
targeted school districts, by definition, cannot spare. Instead, 
arming schools with open-source software will have two benefits. 
First, it will set schools down a long-term path that they can 
afford. The cost of obtaining open-source upgrades is trivial. 
Without low-cost software upgrades, all those nice shiny computers 
run the risk of becoming boat anchors in short order. I'm sure 
someone is saying, ``But open source is too difficult to 
administer!'' Such does not have to be the case, but I'll deal 
with that issue in a future column.
    Also, the Red Hat proposal does not reward Microsoft in the long 
term. If a company is convicted of overpowering markets, why would 
you reward them by putting one of the few markets they don't lead 
under their control? This sounds a lot like a seed-unit program for 
education, not the penalty imposed from losing a trial. Corporate 
misdeeds are supposed to earn punishment, not long-term investment 
opportunities. I believe we would all be better off if the courts 
acknowledged the difference between the two.



MTC-00019580

From: Theodore J. Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam, I am concerned that the Microsoft settlement 
doesn't go far enough. I remember the days of ``DOS isn't done 
until Lotus won't run.'' Microsoft if unrepentant and is 
definitely stifling competition. I propose that Microsoft be bound 
by open standards for file formats, programming languages and 
scripts, and access protocols, such as for the .NET project. Their 
API should also be forced to be public with no secret system calls. 
This should level the playing field.
    Sincerely,
    Theodore J. Allen
    Assistant Professor of Physics (315) 781-3623
    Hobart and William Smith Colleges (315) 781-4039



MTC-00019581

From: jack green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    this settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00019582

From: Mike Schiller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take issue with the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement on three points.
    1. I am an embedded programmer. What that means is that I write 
code for microprocessors that control many of the electronic devices 
used in every day life. For example, embedded programmers are 
responsible for writing software that makes your TV, car, microwave, 
etc. work and perform properly. The last few years have seen the 
introduction of many ``real time operating systems'' for 
embedded devices. These operating systems include proprietary 
operating systems such as QNX, VxWorks, and ThreadX. They also 
include open source operating systems such as uCLinux, eCos, and Red 
Hat Embedded Linux. The introduction of these operating systems, the 
competition between operating system vendors, and the availability 
of open source code add-ons for all of the operating systems has 
allowed embedded programmers to continually improve the performance 
and features of the products they create, decrease the time to 
market of such products, and reduced the cost of such products. The 
proposed settlement threatens the health of the embedded programming 
market. The threat results from three elements of the proposed 
settlement. First, the definition of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' is limited (under Definition U) to include 
``software code (as opposed to source code) distributed 
commercially by Microsoft for use with Personal Computers [such] as 
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, 
and successors to the foregoing, including the Personal Computer 
versions of the products currently code named ``Longhorn'' 
and ``Blackcomb'' and their successors.'' It makes no 
mention of Embedded Windows Operating Systems such as Windows XP 
Embedded, Windows CE, and Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. Second, 
``Communications Protocol'' is defined as a set of rules 
for 


[[Page 26745]]


information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a 
Windows Operating System Product and a server operating system 
product'' (under Definition B). It makes no mention of the 
interfaces between different ``Windows Operating 
Systems.'' Third, Definition Q can be read to mean servers are 
not personal computers and personal computers are not servers. Thus, 
as embedded Windows is not mentioned, Windows desktop machines are 
not servers, and Microsoft communication protocols are defined to 
include only desktop-server relationships, it seems that Microsoft 
will not be required to release documentation regarding the 
interface and communication protocols between Embedded Windows 
Operating Systems, and desktop Windows Operating Systems (or even 
for those protocols used to communicate between Desktop Windows 
Operating Systems). Since desktop computer interoperability is a 
desired feature of many embedded operating system products, the 
introduction of closed interfaces between the embedded and desktop 
versions of Windows will allow Microsoft to use its monopoly power 
in the desktop market to unfairly leverage its position in the 
embedded operating system market. Additionally, the settlement will 
not require Microsoft to release communications protocols between 
Desktop Windows Operating Systems. This will allow Microsoft to 
continue to deter competition in the desktop market by discouraging 
the development and sale of different and interoperable desktop 
operating systems.
    2. The second point that I wish to take issue with is the 
``Appointment of a Microsoft Internal Compliance 
Officer.'' The settlement states: ``Microsoft shall 
designate, within 30 days of entry of this Final Judgment, an 
internal Compliance Officer who shall be an employee of Microsoft 
with responsibility for administering Microsoft's antitrust 
compliance program and helping to ensure compliance with this Final 
Judgment.'' As the paycheck of any employee of any corporation 
is dependent on the income of that corporation, and as violations of 
this settlement could lead to higher Microsoft profits, it is 
unreasonable to expect an employee of Microsoft to be able to 
perform this task without being subjected to a conflict of interest.
    3. The third point that I question is the line of the settlement 
that states that Microsoft may determine what entities meet 
``reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business.'' 
With the uncertainty inherent in a free market economy, only the 
market itself can determine which business models are viable. Thus, 
it is unreasonable to expect that Microsoft is capable of defining 
any standard, reasonable or unreasonable, objective or subjective, 
that is capable of determining with any precision or accuracy the 
viability of a business. Additionally, this would preclude academic 
institutions entirely, as such entities are not businesses. I hope 
that these points are taken into consideration, and that the 
proposed settlement will not be accepted.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Schiller



MTC-00019583

From: Robert Abrams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:21pm
Subject: AOL suit against Microsoft
    I think the marketplace should determine the winners or losers 
not the courtroom. These companies must get out of the litigation 
business and concentrate on coming up with get new technologies that 
we consumers want to purchase. Thank you.
    Robert Abrams
    Laguna Hills, Ca. 92653



MTC-00019584

From: Alan Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement
22 January, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to add my name to the list of people opposed to the 
Proposed Final Judgement in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust 
case.
    As a software developer with 11 years of business experience, I 
have watched Microsoft's rise to dominance in several markets and 
been dismayed by many of the techniques it has used to attain and 
maintain dominance at the expense of other companies, competing 
software platforms and consumers such as myself. Still, while I have 
often found Microsoft's techniques distasteful and unethical, I am 
far less concerned about remedies for its past behavior than I am 
about ensuring that the same types of behavior are prevented in the 
future. From my reading of the Proposed Judgement those remedies 
that actually work against Microsoft would be ineffective against a 
company determined to bypass them and would not even constitute 
significant obstacles in that bypassing process, further in many 
cases the remedies and definitions seem to have been specifically 
crafted to make them effectively nonexistent or to actually 
strengthen Microsoft's position in current or potential future 
markets. That Microsoft will work to bypass the original intent of 
the Judgement is clear for both technical and business 
practices-even during the course of the trial and settlement 
negotiations it continued to use tactics that should be blocked by a 
solid agreement.
    As an example, the future direction of Microsoft's focus has 
just this month been declared to be security, while under the 
Proposed Judgement anything related to security need not be 
disclosed even if such would otherwise be mandatory. Under a strict 
reading, if Microsoft adds even rudimentary security interfaces to 
its APIs then none of those APIs need be disclosed and there is no 
penalty for not disclosing them -a requirement for receiving 
documentation for those APIs is that any business needing it must 
meet Microsoft-developed standards of business viability; non-
businesses need not apply at all because access will simply not be 
available.
    Overall, I feel that the Proposed Final Judgement is deeply 
flawed and should be substantially revised to remove these flaws 
before being accepted. A software and content monoculture such as 
Microsoft clearly wishes to have in place harms all of us in the 
long term, even Microsoft and its investors.
    Sincerely,
    Alan J. Miller
    Des Plaines, IL



MTC-00019585

From: Ken Lotterman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is very bad. And Microsoft knows that, 
except that for Microsoft, it is very good. They are not only 
getting away with very sneaky and unethical marketing ploys, but in 
the terms of the agreement, they will actually get to practice MORE 
sneaky and unethical marketing ploys.
    How would you like if you never had a computer before, but you 
really wanted to get on the internet, so you went and bought one, 
took it home, hooked it all up, turned it on, found an icon on the 
MAIN screen that says ``Connect to the Internet'' so you 
double click on it thinking how easy that was........ Next thing you 
know, Microsoft has tricked you into signing up for *their* internet 
service (here comes the par that infuriates me) and never once 
stopped along the way and advised you that there are alternatives, 
some of them decidedly better or for less money. Take note of the 
following statement: This happens EVERY DAY. Consumers need someone 
who has a sense of FAIRness to watch over every marketing move 
Microsoft makes and approve it, or at worst, an unbiased peer-based 
panel can approve or disapprove.
    I digress.
    Ken Lotterman
    Grand Rapids Michigan



MTC-00019586

From: William Pearl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Please find enclosed copy of my letter 
concerning Microsoft.
    Thank you very much.
    William T. Pearl
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I appreciate the chance to comment on the 
proposed settlement reached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft in the antitrust litigation. Microsoft was alleged to have 
violated the antitrust laws by engaging in business practices and 
predatory pricing. The settlement agreement requires Microsoft to 
open its Windows operating system to competition from non-Microsoft 
software.
    It also requires Microsoft to establish a uniform pricing 
structure in licensing its 


[[Page 26746]]


Windows operating systems. I believe that 
the settlement agreement provides adequate remedies to Microsoft's 
alleged violations. Please move forward with the Microsoft 
litigation by accepting the proposed settlement agreement at the 
close of the public comment period.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    William T. Pearl



MTC-00019587

From: Kenneth Legg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The customers are getting the short end of the stick with this 
settlement. Without question Microsoft is a monopoly and should be 
treated as such. I work in the computer field and know that there 
are companies with thousands of P.C's running Windows software. To 
move to another platform would mean not only buying a new O.S but 
also all the software and then retrain all the workers. This is not 
something that can be done in the real world. Microsoft owns the 
desktop.
    Kenneth Legg
    Logan, WV



MTC-00019588

From: The Martian Embassy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    : [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As per the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement.
    General Comment: ``We didn't do it... and promise never to 
do it again!'' While somewhat cheeky, the above is still at 
least minimally respectful of the laws of the land. Microsoft's 
actions indicate that its officers do not have even that limited 
respect. I believe they will simply ignore the settlement's 
strictures, and the whole, expensive and slow process will have to 
start again.
    Specific Comment: ``Ignorance is no protector of 
virtue.'' The settlement apparently allows Microsoft to avoid 
documenting any portion of the software merely by claiming that the 
particular software elements are involved in ``security of 
anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems'' (section J). 
There seems to be no requirement that Microsoft prove that the code 
is involved in security or that its documentation would indeed 
compromise security. Additionally, refusal to document interfaces 
could (and will) be used to stonewall attempts to determine whether 
the company has illegally appropriated non-Microsoft software. In 
particular, I refer to the so-called ``Open Source'' 
software which is often accompanied by a license restricting its 
incorporation into for-profit products.
    Thank you.
    Bruce de Graaf
    23 Edmunds Way
    Northborough, Massachusetts 01532



MTC-00019589

From: Ntlor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to add my vote about thinking the proposed settlement 
is a bad idea. I'm surprised that the Department of Justice would 
even consider such a obviously skewed proposal. Microsoft is just 
thumbing their nose at our government.



MTC-00019590

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad. It will hurt consumers and 
stifle innovation in the technology world.
    Please reject it!



MTC-00019591

From: Christopher.Caldwell@ Interliant.COM@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:31pm
Subject: Comments on recent Anti-trust decisions
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 make the following comments on 
the proposed Microsoft settlement:
    1:There has been previous anti-trust decisions against Microsoft 
with respect to their management of OEM deals forcing hardware 
dealers to exclude other vendor's products. These decisions had 
little effect on opening up markets to other vendors.
    2:Microsoft has continued to act in a manor showing that they 
completely missed the concepts of Anti-trust, continuing to act in 
ways that missed the spirit, if not the actual wording of previous 
judgements against them.
    3:Microsoft has actively lobbied at all different levels of 
government to manipulate further decisions by the Department of 
Justice, rather than to handle the issue directly through lawyers 
and existing law. Indeed, Microsoft has manipulated the environment 
in which the DOJ acts with respect to these Anti-trust decisions. 
The effectiveness of their manipulation (and the quantity of money 
spent by them) is indeed more evidence of the total power of their 
monopoly. As a citizen, I am appalled that such blatantly cynical 
and money driven manipulation is so obviously being ignored. I 
wonder how this proposed settlement compares to previous DOJ 
decisions with other companies in the past. How does this settlement 
compare to the break-up of the AT&T, etc? As an engineer 
watching people forced to use inferior Microsoft products because 
business demands force them to, I am appalled that the definitions 
of products, APIs, etc within the settlement are so tightly defined 
as to make the settlement meaningless one rev of the OS later. It is 
as if much of the wording was designated by Microsoft lawyers to 
protect the company from being inhibited by this settlement in the 
future. Isn't that what the settlement proposed is supposed to do? 
Isn't it supposed to prevent Microsoft from abusing United States 
businesses and economies by preventing future bad acts?
    The previous decision to break up Microsoft into two pieces 
didn't go far enough. Leaving them intact with a management 
structure that shows every inclination to continue skirting the law 
and abusing businesses by their pure size is a failure to act in the 
best interests of the country. Is there any punitive nature to this 
settlement? It doesn't appear so. As a result, you are leaving a 
regime of lawyers and managers in place with every intent on 
weedling around the exact wording of the proposed settlement. The 
effect of this settlement will be to cause Microsoft to hire more 
lawyers so that they don't violate anything explicitly prohibited in 
the settlement, but it will not change their actual methods of 
dealing with the industry in any appreciable fashion. I believe the 
DOJ should separate the operating system development team from the 
applications development team, in addition to separating business 
and home applications. Indeed, Microsoft's attempts to penetrate the 
service industries (MSN) should also become separate businesses. The 
credibility of the DOJ is clearly in question when the majority of 
people in the industries effected by this decision believe that this 
settlement will have no noticable effect on how Microsoft does 
business.
    Respectfully,
    Christopher M. Caldwell



MTC-00019592

From: David A. Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In view of many of the items outlined in the proposed settlement 
of the antitrust action against Microsoft, I must register an 
opinion that the settlement is a bad idea, that it addresses little 
to none of the damage done by Microsoft to the industry, and that it 
does little to discourage a continuation of these practices, while 
enhancing Microsoft's footing in education-one area where 
other products and vendors have been able to move more freely of 
Microsoft's influence.



MTC-00019593

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,Gopal Raman
Date: 1/23/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor:
    I am writing to convey to you my sense of disappointment over 
the recent DOJ settlement of the antirust case against Microsft 
Corp. I am a software engineer working in the silicon valley in 
California. I was formerly a researcher with AT&T Labs Research 
in Florham Park, NJ. There are many reasons why I believe that 
Microsoft is a monopolist. They are the following:
    1. Microsoft has effectively prevented PC manufacturers from 
shipping PCs with any 


[[Page 26747]]


other operating system other than Windows. 
They have done this by negotiating contracts with PC manufacturers 
that requires them to pay for a Windows license even if a PC ships 
with a different operating system.
    2. Widely used Microsoft applications such as Word and Power 
Point use a secret format to store the content (such as documents 
and presentations) created by users. In addition, Microsoft 
gratutiously changes these formats with every new release forcing 
every user to pay to upgrade to the new version. The secrecy issue 
exacerbates the problem of Microsoft's near monopoly on the PC 
operating system. If the file formats were shared freely, then these 
applications could be easily ported by other companies to different 
operating systems thereby encouraging users to choose an operating 
system other than Windows and interwork with Windows users.
    3. Companies hesitate from building applications for the 
Microsoft operating system because of the threat of Microsoft being 
able to cause these applications to ``break'' in future 
Windows releases. In addition, Microsoft subsumes the function of 
third party applications into their proprietary operating system 
with each release. This not only violates all principles of good 
software and system design but also has the side effect of putting 
other application companies out of business.
    Because of their monopoly position, Microsoft is not motivated 
to add useful features into their operating system that save time 
and money for users. For example, the X window system that allows 
multiple users to share a single server has been around since the 
mid 80's and is supported by all Unix systems. However Microsoft 
chooses not to provide this since more than one user could share a 
PC thus reducing the number of units sold.
    In short, Microsoft has consumers at their mercy. They are only 
interested in getting more revenue at the cost of user convenience 
and ease of use. In view of the above, I humbly and earnestly beg 
you to reconsider the recent settlement that would encourage 
Microsoft to continue their abusive practices.
    Regards
    R. Gopalakrishnan Ph.D
    Senior Software Engineer
    TeraOptic Networks
    686 West Maude, Suite 103
    Sunnyvale CA 94085-3518
    Phone: (408)-331-0715
    Fax: (408)-331-0104



MTC-00019594

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement is not adequate for the public good.
    The Microsoft seetlement as currently structured is not in the 
best interest of the computer using public. It does not sufficiently 
control, let alone punish past, monopolistic practices.



MTC-00019595

From: Kyle McDonald-Eagle CAD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this to add my vioce to the the many consumers in 
this country who believe the proposed final judgement, in the 
Microsoft antitrust case, is extremely weak. Corporations can not be 
allowed to violate the citizens and laws of this country like this 
and get away with it. A much stronger judgement is deserved by the 
actions Microsoft has taken in the past, and continues to take 
today.
    Please do not let them get off this easy.
    Kyle J. McDonald Systems Support Engineer
    Sun Microsystems Inc. 




MTC-00019596

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is no punishment to Micro$oft at all 
and would be to its advantage even without the incentive of getting 
the trial stopped. The proposal to give software free for 5 years to 
schools that could not afford it in the first place is no punishment 
at all-the cost of a CD is about 25c apiece. It's probably no 
coincidence at all that the agreement is for 5 years when the IT 
world is used to a 3 year upgrade cycle. The schools concerned get 
one upgrade free and then microsoft gets a new set of customers next 
time !! During the 5 year period the only competitor, Apple, is 
locked out, again to MS advantage. opinions expressed are of the 
writer and not my employer.



MTC-00019597

From: Will Ganz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed ``Seattlement'' is sellout of the highest 
proportions and is more of a ``reward'' rather than a 
``remedy'' for Microsoft's behavior. To have an order with 
realistic chance of being enforced and to allow diversity in the 
market the following is required:
    1.. An oversight group that can stop Microsoft's behavior for 
violations of this agreement with monetary penalties available. The 
present proposed group is a toothless tiger.
    2.. Revelation of all software patents that they hold so that 
they cannot threaten with FUD(Fear, Uncertainity, & Doubt) on 
any vendor.
    3.. Revelation of all API's for Windows. A 6 month notification 
of the change in the API's should be required so that Microsoft 
cannot change them at will to break competing products. Borland's 
Delphi compiler is the best example of this corporate harassment 
with Microsoft continually changing the underlying API's to destroy 
any advantage that Borland may gain through technological 
advancements.
    4.. Allow end users to keep their licenses for Windows should 
their computer fail. This would allow consumers to upgrade their 
computers without continually having to buy yet another license for 
the new computer.
    5.. Require Microsoft to directly refund consumers for licences 
of Windows when they do not agree to the End User License Agreement. 
This is typically done when consumers install a competing operating 
system. Presently, Microsoft refuses to refund consumers their money 
for the licences that they do not agree with and the OEMs do not 
refund the consumer's money because they are afraid of dealing with 
Microsoft and jeopardizing their contract for Windows. This circular 
logic deliberately frustrates consumers in getting the refund they 
are entitled. This raises the cost of competing operating systems by 
requiring consumers to buy, first the computer with Windows, and 
then pay again for a copy of the alternative operating system.
    Sincerely,
    Will Ganz



MTC-00019598

From: jayswift
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I feel as a computer user and thus a consumer that the current 
proposed settlement of the Justice Department against Microsoft is a 
fair one and will promote competition. In fact, the capability of 
competing companies to compete has always been there: all they have 
to do is invent an OS. (That Linux exists is proof of this.) The 
provisions outlined in the Settlement would seem to take care of any 
unfair ``bundling'' problems and make any version of 
Windows available to other competing software.
    This has really gone on long enough. The public is no longer 
being served by continuing the DOJ's case any further. It may, in 
fact, be substantially harmed if more millions are spent prosecuting 
this case As a writer, I do believe in copyright laws, patents, and 
protection of what one creates.
    Joan Swift
    18520 Sound View Place
    Edmonds, WA. 98020



MTC-00019599

From: Wes Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does not go far enough to 
ensure Microsoft cannot abuse its monopoly position in the future, 
nor does it remove the barrier of entry for potential competitors 
that allows Microsoft to maintain its illegal monopoly position. I 
believe these problems (among others) needs to be addressed to 
fulfill the purpose of antitrust legislation.
    Wes Morgan
    8024 NE 139
    Edmond, OK 73013
    (405) 396-2552
    (616) 954-4231



MTC-00019600

From: Kevin Bong
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am an Information Technology Professional with experience in 
both programming and systems administration 


[[Page 26748]]


with various technology platforms, including the Microsoft Windows 
operating system. I am also a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer.
    I have closely followed the recent Microsoft antitrust trial, 
and have thoroughly reviewed the Proposed Final Judgment. I strongly 
feel that the remedies put forth in the Proposed Final Judgment are 
INSUFFICIENT. The following are some reasons supporting this 
conclusion.
    The Proposed Final Judgment does not give protection to 
competing operating systems and products that implement or emulate 
the Windows API's, allowing them to run software written for 
Windows. In fact, the Proposed Final Judgment restricts information 
on Windows API's to be released for the purpose of writing competing 
operating systems that interoperate with Windows.
    One of the main problems of interoperation with the Windows 
operating system is the use of proprietary, undocumented file 
formats and communications protocols. A critical component of the 
success of competing products is interoperability with Microsoft 
products. Disclosure of file formats and protocols, as well as a 
competitors ability to read, write, and emulate these formats and 
protocols is necessary. The Proposed Final Judgment does not take 
any steps to break this barrier to entry.
    Microsoft denies competing operating systems entry into the 
market by using overly restrictive licensing terms and by building 
intentional incompatibilities into software. The Proposed Final 
Judgment does not prohibit these activities. Microsoft currently has 
licensing terms which restrict Open Source software from running on 
Windows. Microsoft also has licensing terms which restrict Microsoft 
applications from running on Open Source operating systems. These 
issues NEED to be addressed for the Proposed Final Judgment to be 
effective. The Proposed Final Judgment WILL NOT work to unfetter the 
market from Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct, WILL NOT prevent 
Microsoft from denying competitive products entry into the market, 
WILL NOT deny Microsoft the benefits of their illegal activities, 
and WILL NOT prevent Microsoft from furthering their illegal 
monopoly into other markets in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin M. Bong
    121 S. Wisconsin St.
    Elkhorn, WI 53121



MTC-00019601

From: David Livesay, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
of the Microsoft antitrust case. I feel that the proposed settlement 
is riddled with loopholes that will allow-and in some cases 
even sanction-Microsoft's unfair, illegal and economically 
disruptive business practices.
    I believe that the best way to ensure a healthy and competitive 
technology industry, and to promote competition by Microsoft and its 
competitors, would be a structural remedy that splits Microsoft in 
such a way as to prevent them from leveraging their monopoly 
products to gain unfair advantages in other markets, and to enjoin 
them from enforcing unreasonable policies that prevent the 
development of competitive operating systems and other software 
products. Although I do not consider myself a conservative, I 
support the recommendation presented to the court by the Progress 
and Freedom Foundation which advocates splitting the operating 
systems from the other software and Internet services, but also 
would create three operating system companies that would have to 
offer innovations and alternative features in order to compete with 
each other, thereby increasing consumer choice and stimulating the 
economic performance of the technology sector. A remedy such as this 
would allow market forces to stimulate innovation and consumer 
responsiveness without the need for expensive and ineffectual 
regulation and enforcement.
    Sincerely,
    David A. Livesay, Ph.D.



MTC-00019602

From: Travis Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust trial is an 
outrage. How can the Department of Justice let Microsoft off the 
hook with a slap on the wrist after proving that Microsoft was in 
clear and egregious violation of antitrust law and common ethics?
    The Bush administration seems to think that we owe Microsoft 
free reign to practice whatever underhanded tactics they please 
because Microsoft is important to the economy. The truth is that 
Microsoft has consistently abused their monopoly power to squash 
innovation in the computer industry whenever it has had the 
slightest potential to threaten the tiniest percentage of that vast 
monopoly. I'm weary from paying exorbitant prices for the temporary 
and restricted privilege of licensing Microsoft's bug-ridden, 
security-challenged bloatware. Why don't I buy something else? There 
aren't any other mainstream alternatives for Intel-compatible PCs. 
Microsoft has made sure of that. In most cases, I haven't even had 
the opportunity to buy a computer without Microsoft dipping their 
hands into my pockets - if you buy the computer, you pay Microsoft 
even if you don't want their software. I'm all for competition, but 
Microsoft has leveraged their monopoly to make sure that there is no 
possibility of competition. Microsoft has held America back in order 
to further the interests of Microsoft and will continue to do so if 
the policies of the current administration do not change.
    Sincerely,
    Travis Ross
    PO Box 343
    Moorcroft, WY 82721



MTC-00019603

From: Jeanne S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Not quite clear to me how Microsoft's plan to donate millions of 
dollars worth of software and hardware into education, as part of 
the antitrust settlement, is a punishment to them. Sounds like a 
nice way for the company to extend it's reach into an area where it 
has traditionally not been able to dominate.
    Sincerely,
    N. Herb Gundy, CCC-SLP



MTC-00019604

From: Camille Roussel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is bad idea



MTC-00019605

From: Jim Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is ironic that AOL-TIme Warner should be going to court 
alleging anti-competitive practices by Microsoft. AOL is famous in 
the industry for its own lack of cooperation with instant messaging 
standards and its exclusionary, proprietary software that does not 
interoperate well with the rest of the internet. As a citizen-user 
of internet software, it is my view that AOL's actions against 
Microsoft could result in even more wasted capital and energy than 
have previous efforts of other Microsoft competitors to compete in 
the courts and in politics instead of technically with good software 
and standards. AOL is a pot calling the Microsoft kettle black. The 
AOL legal filing is a cynical manipulation of the legal process and 
political setting by the most powerful media group in the country. 
These are both extremely large and powerful companies. Get them out 
of the court room to compete on their technical and business merits.
    Respectfully,
    Jim Stevens
    9707 35th Avenue NE
    Seattle, WA 98115



MTC-00019606

From: Eric Straavaldsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement does little to help deal 
with Microsoft's use of its products to leverage it self in the 
market. A ``settlement'' that requires it to give its 
software to education, does not hurt but in fact helps them leverage 
the market. The settlement as a whole is only a very limited 
response to a company has shown a history of being uncooperative 
with the fair trade laws of the US. In light of the fact that this 
case is the result of a second action against Microsoft because of 
their unwillingness to follow the restrictions set down by a US 
court calls for a stronger response. If this was a criminal case a 
second offense would count strongly in the outcome.
    eric


[[Page 26749]]




MTC-00019607

From: barak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea and will do nothing 
to prevent Microsoft from continuing their anticompetitive 
practices. Microsoft should be fined heavily. I think it is safe to 
say that in a competitive market no single player will have a market 
share greater than 50%. That would then imply that any market share 
that Microsoft held over the first 50% was a result of their 
anticompetitive practices and any profit that resulted from that 
excess market share was acquired illegally. I feel that the only 
effective remedy for this is to fine them for the entire amount of 
the illegally acquired profits over the last 10 years. The funds 
from the fines should be used to develop a public domain operating 
system and office suite that is compatible with the Microsoft 
offerings. Another option, since the fines would not doubt be huge 
and require liquidation of some of Microsoft's holdings, would be to 
seize intellectual property of an equivalent value, perhaps the 
source code to Office or Windows, and release it into the public 
domain. Questionable OEM bundling practices forced the American 
people to fund the development of those products every time we 
bought a computer, isn't it time we were given what we have been 
paying for?



MTC-00019608

From: David Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the current settlement with Microsoft causes harm 
to me as a consumer. I think that Microsoft is the Standard Oil of 
the internet age and that consumers such as myself suffer from its 
power as a monopoly. Please give some consideration to revising the 
settlement so that consumers have a greater choice in operating 
systems and software.
    Respectfully,
    David R. Johnson, MSW



MTC-00019609

From: Ken Hooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to say that I am against the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. The notion that Microsoft can redeem itself by giving 
free computers and software to schools, is like the notion that drug 
pushers can redeem themselves by giving away free samples in 
schoolyards.
    Respectfully,
    Ken Hooper
    Memphis, Tennessee USA



MTC-00019610

From: Jerry Chretien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:30pm
1/23/02
    Dear Sirs:
    I would only hope that this suit would settle and soon. As an 
entrepreneur I believe that Microsoft should be able to compete 
without restraint. I do not find they're giving away their browser 
any different than AOL sending out hundreds of thousands of discs 
promoting their online services. As a business person that is not 
computer literate and savvy I find that if I stick to Microsoft 
programs on all of my systems everything seems to run and perform 
without problems and I always receive the result I was looking for. 
However, there have been occasions in the past, when different 
programs have been installed on our systems and the labor and time 
required to keep them running and to keep them compatible is very 
expensive. The labor to keep non Microsoft programs running is not 
the biggest expense item. It's the non-productive time and lost 
opportunity. some years ago I made a decision that whenever I bought 
computers, Servers and software that they would always have the 
Intel chip and motherboard, and they would be loaded with Microsoft 
programs. I do not and have never felt like I was being taken 
advantage of by Microsoft. As an entrepreneur I find all the things 
said about Microsoft to be just so much crying on the part of their 
competitors. Their competitors either can't build or sustain a 
product or take it to market yet they want me to suffer by having 
the government make it more difficult for me to get Microsoft 
products. Can you imagine trying to keep all your systems up and 
running with some little known off brand of program that only has a 
handful of people around the country that know what is going on with 
the program. I'm sorry but I only see the government action as 
making everything more expensive and difficult for me to do 
business. I also think that the action on the part of the individual 
states is more political than anything else. Who are they trying to 
protect? Could it be Kodak, Sun Micro Systems, AOL etc.
    Yours truly,
    Jerald E. Chretien
    Portland, Oregon



MTC-00019611

From: Greg Poucher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my disapproval of the currently proposed 
settlement in the US DOJ anti-trust case against Microsoft. Not only 
are its penalties for past transgressions against competitors such 
as Netscape and Apple Computer inadequate, but its protections 
against future misdeeds are lacking any effective enforcement 
provisions. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory Evan Poucher
    Low Rise 6, #6411
    Cornell University
    Ithaca, NY 14853



MTC-00019612

From: John Hussar
To: Microsoft ATR,Kevin Boland
Date: 1/23/02 9:35pm
Subject: Monopoly/Microsoft/Fortune100 Companies
    I am a consultant to some major Fortune 100 companies and have 
seen the anti competitive aspects of Microsoft's operating system 
firsthand. In general MS `Windows' almost seems 
purposely written not be able to interact with other operating 
systems by other manufacturers. This makes it very difficult, if not 
impossible, for a company to use alternate computers with different 
operating systems (i.e.. Macintosh). Whether this is true must be 
analyzed in the way the Windows code is written. Unfortunately one 
would need to be a computer programmer to truly evaluate this. I 
think it is crucial that Microsoft's de facto monopoly be stopped as 
it is, in my professional opinion, dangerous to destroy competition 
in the area of computing.
    It is an unsound practice to have only one operating system 
controlled by only one company. At best this situation squelches 
innovation and leads to a stagnant computer market. At worst it is a 
danger to our national security, as we (as a nation) are then at the 
mercy of how securely that system is written. Again, in my 
professional opinion, it is a badly written operating system and is 
riddled with many serious security holes. We have already seen the 
cost of computer worms and virus that have cost companies billions 
of dollars. The damage has been on par, cost wise, with floods, 
hurricanes, and other natural disasters. It is not an acceptable 
situation for this country to find ourselves at the mercy of this 
obvious monopoly called Microsoft. It is imperative that free and 
open competition be allowed back into the operating system 
marketplace.
    John Hussar
    JJH, Inc



MTC-00019613

From: Karl Uzar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I think the proposed settlement ``against'' Microsoft 
is rediculous. The purpose of the antitrust trial was to force 
Microsoft to allow competition from the likes of Linux and Apple. 
The settlement does very little to further this. Here's what I'd 
like to see:
    1. Well-documented, freely released APIs and file formats. No 
exceptions for companies or groups that ``don't have [what 
Microsoft considers] a valid business model.''
    2. A substantial fine-something that would make Microsoft 
think a little. $25 million dollars at least.
    3. Reduced OEM licensing restrictions. Does Gateway want to sell 
a machine with both Windows and Linux (ie. dual-booting)? Fine, more 
power to them. Netscape instead of Internet Explorer? Go ahead. And 
Open Office.org over Microsoft Office? Bring it on!
    4. The OEM shouldn't be required to place icons for installed 
Microsoft products on the Desktop, either.
    5. Some legal definition of ``Operating System'' 
should be established, and it should be fairly conservative. A 
definition of ``Computing Package'' should be established 
as well; this would include everything you need to do basic work on 
a computer (operating system, productivity/office suite, Web 
browser, e-mail application, etc.) Right now, Microsoft is selling a 
computing 


[[Page 26750]]


package passing for an operating system. There's nothing 
wrong with selling a computing package, but no one should be forced 
to pay for and use it when all they want is the operating system.
    6. Microsoft must release any information made known to it 
regarding computer security. ``Security through 
obscurity'' is a really bad idea, because someone else will 
invariably independently hit upon the same security flaw and exploit 
it. Remember when servers running Microsoft Internet Information 
Server (IIS) went down with Code Red and its variants, costing 
companies billions? What if Microsoft knew about the hole weeks 
before the virus hit, and didn't bother to patch it? The Information 
Technology industry desparately needs some measure of accountability 
from Microsoft.
    7. Tying in to number 5, some form of oversight committee should 
be established, and it should be staffed with people who have 
computer knowledge. -PC Magazine- columnist John C. 
Dvorak has announced his ``candidacy,'' and he wouldn't be 
a bad choice. Granted, you don't want people who are vehemently 
anti-Microsoft, but you don't want yes-men (or -women) either. The 
committee's job should be to ensure that Microsoft doesn't violate 
the settlement, and to resolve disputes without resorting to 
litigation. Thank you for taking the time to read these comments. No 
matter what the final decision is, it is good to make one's voice 
heard.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Riggle



MTC-00019614

From: William Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I use Microsoft products, both in my work, and in my life. I am 
a software designer who has created three generations of video 
servers based on Microsoft Windows. These are among the most cost-
effective of such products on the market today, and they empower 
broadcasters in small market stations, and educational and religious 
stations, which would otherwise be unable to afford such technology. 
I strenuously resent the government's characterization of me and my 
colleagues as ``victims'' of Microsoft. I am by no means 
helpless, and I do have alternatives to Microsoft products; I use 
Microsoft products because they serve my needs well. No one has the 
right to dictate to me what software I will use, least of all my own 
government. This country, and at times, the government and courts, 
seem entirely irrational in their view of business. Productive 
employment is created by private business (such as Microsoft), not 
by government, which is more properly viewed as the administrative 
overhead of running the country. I urge you to bear in mind that the 
original complaint against Microsoft was voiced, not by any 
consumer, but by Microsoft's wealthy and large competitors. 
Competition is healthy, but these companies seemed to prefer that 
the government do what they could not: to overpower Microsoft. That 
their own business plans failed does not justify having the 
government damage a highly successful company. We are guaranteed by 
the Constitution the right to the ``pursuit of 
happiness'', not to happiness unearned. The politicians who 
have sided with detractors of Microsoft in this are in danger of 
supporting unequal treatment of companies under the law. As a 
corporation is a legal fiction which conveniently equates to a 
person, so it must be viewed that any corporation is as entitled to 
equal treatment as is any other citizen. The alternative only 
fosters increased corruption in government. I am tired of hearing 
the phrase ``rule of law'' bandied about by those who 
would apply it selectively. I am tired of the seemingly ceaseless 
attempts of our politicians to tax or legislate out of existence 
companies which provide many thousands of jobs for citizens. I want 
to see America the most successful and capitalist economy in the 
world-not see it throttled and abused by politicians (and even 
courts) whose own efforts create no part of the gross domestic 
product. Microsoft has a fundamental right to its corporate 
property, just as I have a fundamental right to my own property. 
These rights are assured by the Constitution. They are also 
jeopardized by uneven application of ill-conceived law. I call upon 
the Court, and upon the Department of Justice to preserve and 
protect these rights, not to dismantle them. This is, after all, the 
proper duty of the government, to protect and defend the rights of 
citizens, from whom their power obtains.
    Best regards,
    William Meyer



MTC-00019615

From: Jeff Elkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft needs to open it's APIs and publish it's file formats.
    That would level the playing field.
    Jeff Elkins
    Ocala, FL



MTC-00019616

From: Scott Glenn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case does 
nothing to punish Microsoft for its rampant anticompetitive 
practices or provide a path for the IT industry to migrate to a 
healthier technological marketplace.



MTC-00019617

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a software developer, I am concerned that the Proposed Final 
Judgment in the DOJ v Microsoft case has many technical loopholes 
that, based upon previous actions, will be exploited by Microsoft to 
retain their monopoly. Many of the End User License Agreements that 
must be accepted to produce software compatible with the Microsoft 
windows operating system regulate and limit what one can do with the 
program. There are many API's that Microsoft does not document 
publicly, but which are used internally to increase the performance 
of their own products. Publication of all, not just middleware, 
API's should be a requirement. The timetable for publication of the 
API's is probably sufficient, but the requirement that any software 
pass an undefined compatibility test is leaving the door wide open 
for abuse. The most grievous omission from the proposed settlement 
is allowing their proprietary file formats and communications 
protocols to be kept undocumented. This is what allows Microsoft to 
maintain its monopoly in the desktop market. It will modify/produce 
a protocol or format and write applications that work with the 
protocol/format. This new protocol and application base will be 
forced onto End Users using their monopoly. Microsoft will then 
protect said protocols/formats with EULAs, creating a major barrier 
to entry. These are just some of the issues that plague the Proposed 
Settlement. I urge you to close some of these loopholes and restore 
competition to the operating system market.
    Thanks for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Lorin Hattrup



MTC-00019618

From: Jed McBride
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it's a shame that the DoJ has decided to show the world 
that companies are not allowed to fight to be number one. Perhaps 
worse than that, the DoJ has neglected to look in to other examples 
of monopolies, such as AOL's purchasing of all other bulletin board 
services aside from MSN. And of course the DoJ will be helping AOL 
by hurting it's competitor in that way. I have to say it's legal 
loopholes and unfair litigation like this that has caused me and 
many of my peers to lose faith in the legal system. It is my fervent 
wish that these charges against Microsoft be dropped, and I can only 
pray that thousands if not millions of other citizens are taking the 
time to cry out as I have.
    I thank you for your time.
    Joseph McBride



MTC-00019619

From: Susan Kaiser (SURGY)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    In my opinion, dropping the antitrust action against Microsoft, 
or failing to penalize Microsoft harshly for their grossly unfair 
and illegal business tactics, would be entirely unacceptable. They 
have no concern for consumers or for the quality of their products, 
only for money and dominance.
    Hopefully,
    Susan Kaiser, MD
    Susan Kaiser, MD, PhD, FACSDepartment Phone: 
201-915-2451
    Department of SurgeryPractice Phone: 201-915-2773
    Jersey City Medical CenterFax: 201-915-2350



[[Page 26751]]


    50 Baldwin AvenueEmail: [email protected]
    Jersey City, NJ 07304



MTC-00019620

From: Andrew A. Meier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement for in Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel the proposed settlement does not go far 
enough to redress Microsoft's abuse of it's monopoly status. I am a 
software developer with over seven years experience in developing 
software for UNIX, Linux, Windows, and DOS. My chief complaint with 
the proposed settlement is that it does not stop Microsoft from it's 
monopoly abuses that most affect me. Microsoft requires in the end 
user license agreement (EULA) for many of the products released and 
marketed from them that the user of the software not use the 
software on any competing operating system and in some products 
requires that the user not use the software to create software for 
competing operating systems.
    Though I can run many programs designed for Microsoft Windows in 
my chosen operating system (Linux), the EULA included with those 
programs prevents me from doing so. To use the programs I am then 
forced to use a Microsoft operating system not for any technical 
reason but solely because of the anti-competitive incense agreement. 
In addition, when I develop software, if I wish to use a Microsoft 
product to develop that software, the EULA prevents me from 
releasing that software for competing operating systems because the 
EULA contains a requirement to not distribute the 
``REDISTRIBUTABLES'' required to run the software to 
competing operating systems. Requirements like these are clearly 
anti-competitive. Therefore, any settlement or judgment in the 
Microsoft antitrust must strictly and expressly prohibit any 
requirements Microsoft may place in license agreements that affect 
how a user may use any Microsoft product.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew A. Meier
    708 E. College Ave.
    Waukesha, WI 53186



MTC-00019621

From: Mike Angelichio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am completely opposed to the proposed settlement offered by 
Microsoft. To reiterate many, this settlement would only provide 
Microsoft with a fresh attack on the educational market; one in 
which they are greatly lacking as compared to the business and 
personal market. Again, I would like to state that I am very much 
opposed to Microsofts proposal I would like to see a more 
``neutral'' punishment for the company.
    Thank you for listening.
    Michael Angelichio



MTC-00019622

From: Marcus Lauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:42pm
Subject: Concerns About Microsoft Settlement
    I was not at all surprised by the results of DOJ vs. Microsoft. 
What surprises me is that the proposed settlement does not address 
the issues of the case in the least! Requiring Microsoft to buy 
computers for schools is simply a monetary punishment: a fine. 
Microsoft was not found guilty of failing to give enough money to 
charity! They were found guilty of abusing their monopoly in the 
desktop computer operating system market. Only a settlement which 
directly addresses this behavior is acceptable. We punish crimes 
because we do not want them to reoccur. A punishment which prevents 
the crime from reoccurring, or at least attempts to, should be the 
preferred solution.
    It is impossible to calculate a dollar value for the damage 
which Microsoft has done to other companies, and to the World-Wide 
Web, through abusing its monopoly. Instead, let's try matching the 
punishment to the crime.
    Marcus



MTC-00019623

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Personally my opinion is that the settlement does not address 
any settlement for the people who were effected by Microsoft's 
actions. Would each person who ran Microsoft for the years the 
settlement covers have to sue them individually to recover any 
financial losses they might be able to show?
    The products listed as effected in the decree could be 
``discontinued and renamed'' causing new legal action. The 
listing of specific products instead of a blanket statement saying: 
``all interaction between programs residing on the same 
computer or different computers must be documented and presented, 
whether written by Microsoft or another 
company. . .''
    They could get rid of Internet Explorer and have Microsoft 
`Web Viewer' released in the next version of windows. 
Will this cover a release of Windows 2002? Which would probably be a 
bug fix of Windows 2000? But then the same API that they had to 
release for Win 2000 they would not for Win 2002?
    Finally Windows Security information is exempt. Their Security 
APIs need to be released so they can be tested and their strength 
determined in non-biased labs. There is no good reason for these to 
be exempt.
    Thank you,
    dean norris



MTC-00019624

From: Gus Wirth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned with the proposed settlement regarding 
Microsoft. It does nothing to effectively deter its current 
predatory behavior and fails to punish for past offenses. 
Microsoft's malfeasance extends back to it's earliest days as shown 
in books such as ``Undocumented DOS, 2nd edition'' and 
``Undocumented Windows'' by Andrew Schulman et al, 
Addison-Wesley where Schulman describes how Microsoft deliberately 
introduced code designed to break competitors products. The same 
pattern of behavior continues in its products today, fueled by a 
marketing machine that spews Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about 
competitors designed to intimidate those attempting to use 
alternative products. I am extensively involved with the software 
industry and am intimately familiar with many of its products. I 
have a Masters Degree in Software Engineering enabling me to 
understand the complex technical issues involved. I have been 
employed as an Information Systems Manager for many years, suffering 
the effects of Microsoft's stifling of effective competition. I am 
also on the Board of Directors of the San Diego Computer Society 
, representing over 1000 regular and 
Special Interest Group (SIG) members. Every meeting I attend brings 
up a recurring question: ``What has Microsoft done to me 
today?''
    Gustav Wirth
    Director at Large
    San Diego Computer Society



MTC-00019625

From: John Varela
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement does not go nearly far 
enough in correcting the damage that Microsoft has done to the 
computer industry, nor will it prevent further anticompetitive, 
monopolistic practices by Microsoft.
    John A. Varela
    McLean, VA, 22101-3111



MTC-00019626

From: Corey Grant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You guys caved into Microsoft and in doing so wasted years of 
effort and millions of taxpayer dollars. So what did it take to get 
you guys sell out, Microsoft offer to give you all free hats or 
something?



MTC-00019627

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 23, 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 settling the Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit according to the agreement reached in November. I 
feel that whenever the government gets its hands into something, it 
gets ruined, and the Microsoft case is a serious example.
    I am a Microsoft stockholder, though I do not use Windows as my 
primary operating system. Because of that, I recognize the 

[[Page 26752]]


freedom of choice that already exists in the marketplace. The 
changes Microsoft is agreeing to in how it distributes Windows, 
and in giving computer users new abilities to better use 
non-Microsoft programs with the Windows operating system, will 
further promote freedom of choice. Let the product speak for 
itself. If Microsoft sells good products, they will be successful. 
If they don't (or their competitors don't), they will fail. I urge 
you to settle the antitrust case with no further delay.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Southwell
    113 Glenwood Road
    Fanwood, NJ 07023



MTC-00019628

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Nor does it prevent future 
abuses by Microsoft. Microsoft should become a government regulated 
Monopoly, until its market share drops to an acceptable level. This 
must be true for all Microsoft product lines before regulation is 
lifted. Furthermore, Microsoft should be seperated into three or 
more independent entities that have no hidden relationships. Every 
other competitor must have equal access to the interfaces between 
these entities. -
    Jeff Hurst



MTC-00019629

From: Andrew Ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has done 
irreparable damage to competition in the computing industry and 
should not be given such a light ``punishment''. With 
increased competition, each company will be pressured to produce 
better products in a more timely fashion, a true benefit to the 
public.
    Thank you for your time,
    Andrew Ferguson
    Princeton, NJ



MTC-00019630

From: Robert Sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A fair settlement would require Microsoft to open up the Windows 
APIs to all comers. That just about says it all. The currently 
proposed settlement is so full of loop holes that it is not even a 
slap on the wrist, it is more like a pat on the back. While I 
believe any company should have the rights that Microsoft is 
currently attempting to hide behind, those rights must have limits, 
and in this case those limits are clear and repeated illegal 
practices by Microsoft. Only with strong action can the harm that 
has been done to the OS and Office Suite market be rectified.
    Robert r. Sanders



MTC-00019631

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.
Date: 1/23/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please close the Microsoft Settlement as worked out with DOJ as 
quickly as possibly. Don't let the AOL frivilous suit prolong this 
case. We need Microsoft's efforts concentrated on helping to 
stimulate the economy and to continue their many contributions in 
improving productivity.
    Thank you.
    William and Stephanie Necoechea
    6509 Caminito Catalan
    La Jolla, CA 92037



MTC-00019632

From: David (038) Vangie Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to you on a matter of great concern to myself and 
other professionals in the IT field. As you well know, a proposed 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft is before 
the courts. This settlement would hopefully end the anti-competitive 
and monopolistic practices of Microsoft Corporation. However, as 
currently written, I do not believe that this settlement will 
sufficiently dissuade Microsoft from illegal practices well 
established by precedent. While there are many areas with which I 
take issue, I am particularly troubled by the lack of provisions to 
stop Microsoft from intentionally disabling competing operating 
systems (OS) and applications. In a private antitrust suit brought 
against Microsoft by Caldera in 1986, a judge found that 
``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.'' In that case, a company later acquired by Caldera, 
Digital Research, created a product called DR-DOS. DR-DOS, a 
competing OS, used the DOS API underlying Microsoft's MS-DOS OS to 
run programs written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1, which also used the 
DOS API, intentionally included code to lead users to falsely 
believe Windows 3.1 and DR-DOS were incompatible.
    As written, the proposed settlement does nothing to stop this 
practice. Given its past behavior, there is no reason to believe 
Microsoft will not react similarly if faced with another competitor. 
Any settlement should lower-not raise-the barriers to 
competition. Otherwise, Microsoft can continue their monopolistic 
practices. For this reason and many others, I strongly encourage you 
to reject the proposed settlement. America is built on the premise 
of capitalism. But capitalism cannot function properly if companies 
such as Microsoft are allowed to stifle innovation with anti-
competitive practices.
    Sincerely,
    David Gardner



MTC-00019633

From: chet(u)rizzuto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The Department of Justice Members
    Once again I must sit and write respectfully to the Department 
of Justice about an injustice that AOL is doing to the Microsoft 
Company. At a time when Microsoft has done everything in its power 
to settle these law suits placed against them by those who could not 
compete adequately, namely AOL who has certainly demonstrated their 
incompetence in the Internet World. This company will not be 
satisfied until they make every attempt to ruin the reputation of a 
person who has done more for America than ever will be accomplished 
by other C.E.O.'s or Presidents. If they (AOL) can expend ten 
billion dollars and be connected to Warner Enterprises they 
certainly can not be in dire trouble. No, they just have to continue 
to use the political position because they truly can not compete 
with any computer source. I respectfully request that serious 
consideration be given, once again, to Microsoft to end this fiasco 
that they have been put through. I am an ordinary citizen (senior) 
who is tired of the waste of these monies to the courts for no good 
reason at all. Mr. Case, in my opinion is not a business man and 
should take his stock and retire from the race. Please, for once, 
give Microsoft a break. If AOL thinks they are getting shafted let 
me assure you that I use Microsoft and Netscape so Mr. Case isn't 
losing anything from many millions who use his product. And I might 
add that Microsoft has never turned anyone off from using their 
product with their own.
    Very truly yours,
    C. R. Rizzuto
    Seattle, WA.



MTC-00019634

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In general the settlement does absolutely nothing to curb 
Microsoft's growing monopoly nor to curb their anti-competitive 
practices. In reality it gives the appearance of giving the more 
loopholes to use to continue business as usual while allowing them 
to squash competitors along the way. Hhmmmm.



MTC-00019635

From: PAUL PAVLIK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:36pm
Subject: MS settlement
    Hi'
    i am a dual US Canadian citizen I am highly concerned that the 
proposed MS settlement does NOT punish MS, infact it rewards them 
multifold basically a la steve jobs'' statement Furthermore, 
all this hastle publicity and etc has not stopped them in their 
march foward with the same business practices. In fact, things have 
gotten worse. See cringley's article on busting the software 
pirates. I urge to to put some teeth into things for all of our long 
term benifit.
    thanks for your consideration.
    Paul Pavlik
    Computer/Education Consultant


[[Page 26753]]




MTC-00019636

From: Louis T Dallara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly please fine the hell out of them !!
    Louis T. Dallara CID Infinicon Systems
    Tel: 610.205.0986
    Fax: 610.205.0488



MTC-00019637

From: Ryan Booker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:55pm
Subject: break them up for crying out loud!
    an OS and an Applications company. That will allow more 
competition. It's offensive that the most average of all commercial 
OSes is the market leader.



MTC-00019638

From: David W Binnion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It isn't necessary to recount the ways in which Microsoft has 
stifled competition or used its market penetration to gain a 
foothold in other markets. The DOJ lawyers did that quite well. Nor 
is it necessary to point out that Microsoft has a history of 
ignoring its agreements and doing what it pleases. History speaks 
for itself there as well and it would only insult your intelligence 
to do so.
    Throughout the proceedings both in and out of court we heard 
Microsoft officials claim that they were being punished for being 
successful. We also heard them claim that their ability to innovate 
would be harmed by a judgment against them. But two facts stand out. 
First, Microsoft wasn't put on trial for being successful but rather 
for how it achieved that success. It did it illegally. Second, as an 
early adopter of computer technology, I cannot think of a single 
substantial Microsoft innovation. What the company has achieved, it 
has achieved by standing on the shoulders of others. Of course, this 
has little to do with the case at hand. The questions are these. 
Will the proposed settlement cause Microsoft to change its business 
practices and will the settlement be good for the people of this 
country. To me, the obvious answer is a resounding no. Microsoft 
today is acting no differently than it was before the trial. The 
company doesn't act like a penitent but rather as a victor. The 
leaders of the company act as if they have done nothing wrong. How 
then can we expect them to change their behavior? Indeed, Microsoft 
can only lead one to believe that no behavioral changes will occur. 
More than one computer insider has stated that even before the ink 
is dry on a contract Microsoft is already thinking of ways to break 
it. Such a mindset demands structural changes in the company and the 
settlement does not provide them. The settlement is weak. It may as 
well have been written by Microsoft itself. It needs more teeth. 
Breaking the company into several pieces wasn't the answer-but 
neither is this settlement.
    thank you
    David W Binnion
    Technology Teacher
    Hillsboro High School



MTC-00019639

From: Scott McGookey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice, I am writing to express my 
opinions over the settlement with Microsoft. I feel that Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices have caused great harm to our country. I 
believe that without a stern correction, these practices will 
continue and cause even more damage. Developers need access to 
critical APIs in order to create software that can compete with 
Microsoft's own. Microsoft must be kept from making deals that force 
resellers from including competitor's software on their computers. 
Finally, the settlement must not give Microsoft a stronghold on the 
education market. I believe in our free enterprise system. I believe 
companies should flourish and innovate, but not with unfair, anti-
competitive practices. Please correct this unjustice that has 
affected every single American.
    Sincerely,
    James Scott McGookey



MTC-00019640

From: Joe Fessler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take this opportunity to express the disfavor 
with which I hold the current tentative remedy for the Microsoft 
antitrust case. In my opinion, the major flaw in the agreement 
involves the rather vague description/definition of various terms 
and concepts. An example is ``middleware''. It must be 
kept in mind that many if not all of the technical terms used in the 
``PFJ'' can and will be reinterpreted/redefined as 
technology advances. Not to mention the tendency to use those 
ambiguities to circumvent the intentions of the agreement. Many 
times metaphors are used as convenient tools to explain technical 
aspects to the non technically inclined. If metaphors are codified 
into an agreement, so are the opportunities to exploit situations 
where the metaphor breaks down. Please be warned; references to 
seemingly concrete things are often not so concrete. The example of 
``middleware'' above, is but one of many references to 
something that may only exist when viewed from a very specific 
viewpoint. One man's application is another man's operating system 
component, databases become middleware, middleware becomes OS 
services and the lines between layers of OS's, applications, and 
networking are arbitrary in many cases. It's very easy to turn the 
whole interpretation upside-down if it's in someone's best interest 
to do so. -
    Regards,
    -Joe



MTC-00019641

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the terms of the Microsoft Settlement. Anybody 
who remembers having a computer before Windows. would disagree also. 
Microsoft should simply be put out of business by the government or 
have management replaced, including Bill Gates. If this does not 
happen, they will always be looking for ways to demolish anyone who 
doesn't see things the Microsoft Way. These people are criminals, 
plain and simple. And the only reason they aren't in jail is because 
they are rich.
    Daniel Tarsky
    Asst. DBA/Programmer
    Physicians Medical Group of Santa Cruz County
    (831) 465-7873
    1116 Morrissey Blvd
    Santa Cruz, CA 95065



MTC-00019642

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe that Microsoft must be severely sanctioned for its 
monopolistic actions, and that the Department of Justice's proposed 
remedy is inadequate. I have been a computer scientist since before 
Microsoft was formed, and I have watched the company carefully. The 
actions which were judged monopolistic were in fact entirely typical 
and normal for this company, and far from the worst of their 
actions. The pretrial depositions for the ``Digital DOS'' 
case describe much more egregious actions. (Microsoft settled out of 
court, so those actions have never been judged.) Any expectation 
that Microsoft will willingly change its behavior are wrong. The 
loopholes in the DOJ's proposed consent degree will be fully 
exploited.
    I propose that Microsoft Office be split off into a separate 
company, and that the remainder of Microsoft be required to publish 
the actual source for all of its system interfaces.
    Donald C. Lindsay, Ph.D.



MTC-00019643

From: Rick Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. I have serious concerns over both the 
effectiveness and basic fairness of the proposed remedies. My 
principal concern is that the proposed settlement does not 
adequately restrain Microsoft from using substantially the same 
monopolistic tactics in the future that they have used in the case 
at issue: The practice of using their position to drive smaller 
companies out of business by giving away equivalents to their 
product, then incorporating them as a bundle with their operating 
system, retroactively declaring the new functions as integral to the 
base product, deliberately intertwining them to make separation 
difficult, and finally using the ``improvements'' to 
justify raising the price on the operating system, is not prevented. 
True, the specific question of this 


[[Page 26754]]


sort of practice in regards to 
their web browser is addressed, but that is aleady a fait accompli, 
and nothing in the settlement truly stops them from doing the same 
thing again and again, to others, which they are quite obviously in 
the process of doing. Nor is the practice of using their unique 
power over over the operating system to make changes designed solely 
or primarily to render oher companies'' products less useful 
prevented by the proposed settlement. Part and parcel of this is 
their use of he same unique knowledge and power to make their own 
products more effective. Secondarily, I am concerned that the 
setlement does nothing whatsoever to penalize the company for its 
prior bad acts-the very ones detailed at length in the 
findings of fact. Allowing a monopoly defendant to keeop all of its 
ill-gotten gain, and simply putting weak discouragements against 
repetition in place goes against the basic principles of justice. 
This is particularly true with a defendant as determined and 
contempuous of the process as Microsoft.
    I strongly urge that the proposed settlement be rejected.
    J. R. Thompson
    4815 St Paul Blvd
    Rochester, NY 14617



MTC-00019644

From: Ed Griggs / Lynn Griffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opinion regarding the Antitrust Case 
that the U.S. has against Microsoft. I have been a user of Microsoft 
products and an admirer of Microsoft for many years. It amazes me 
when I think of how Microsoft has helped increase my productivity at 
work and my personal enjoyment at home. The amount of work that I 
can get done now (and how much easier and enjoyable the work is) is 
significantly greater than 10 years ago, before I had a computer, 
running Windows, Office, Outlook and many other Microsoft products. 
And the fun that my family and I have playing computer games and 
accessing the Internet is tremendous. Without Microsoft and the 
standards that they developed, much of this would not be possible, 
or would be much more difficult.
    It disturbs me very much that the government has brought this 
case against Microsoft. These days it appears that success qualifies 
a company to be a target not only of their bitter competitors who 
have lost in the marketplace, but the U.S. Government, which is 
supposed to uphold free enterprise and capitalism.
    The public has spoken through the money that they spend on 
Microsoft products. They recognize the excellent products and 
excellent deals that Microsoft offers. They have reaped enormous 
benefits from Microsoft. I resent the government characterizing the 
public (myself included) as victims of Microsoft and as not knowing 
what is best for ourselves. The more free companies are to do their 
work and sell their products, the better off the public is. The 
public does not benefit from government interference, which stifles 
company's productivity. I encourage the government to cease these 
Antitrust cases against companies such as Microsoft. Companies 
should have the ability to run their business as they see fit and to 
sell their property in any manner that they desire. This freedom is 
what the United States of America was founded upon. This freedom 
must be upheld if our country is to the ideals of the founding 
fathers.
    Lynn Griffin



MTC-00019646

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:49pm
Subject: Settlement
    I do not think the settlement with Microsoft serves the American 
public very well. Thank you. Fran Ard, 613 Hibner Dr., Tupelo, MS 
38804



MTC-00019647

From: Mark Blaes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:47pm
Subject: I disagree with the settlement
    Hello, I was about to pay $50 for a copy of Netscape Navigator 
when MS made IE free. I remember clearly that I thought it was just 
plain wrong to force another company out of their primary business. 
I have been expecting the Government to avenge this clear violation 
of the spirit of the antitrust laws, but they appear to be political 
toadies, with no sense of right and wrong.
    -- Mark Blaes



MTC-00019648

From: Susan Fountain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement. Microsoft is STILL 
dominating the hardware market in that every computer sold is pre-
installed with Windows software. I do not understand why I don't 
have a choice.
    Susan Fountain
    Dallas, TX 75238-2251



MTC-00019649

From: John Cocking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this email as part of the Tunney Act comment 
process on the Microsoft Settlement. I am a computer user of 
primarily Microsoft products because of their monopoly, and I find 
the current settlement ridiculous. It will do little to nothing to 
fix the problems with their corporate behavior. In general, its 
provisions are too narrow and specific, in many cases so specific 
that it could conceivably fail to cover the next version of 
Microsoft's Windows Operating System. Even worse, I see no effective 
enforcement mechanisms in the settlement. The proposed final 
settlement should not be adopted without serious and substantial 
revision.
    Sincerely,
    John Cocking, Greensboro, NC.



MTC-00019650

From: Saxerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As per the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I find the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) 
rather weak when compared to the legal agility Microsoft has already 
displayed inside and out of the court room. A number of overly broad 
definitions in the PFJ would give Microsoft more than ample room to 
evade most if not all of the important restrictions on their anti-
competitive practices. The most obvious definitions problems can be 
seen over the terms ``API'', ``Microsoft 
Middleware'', and ``Windows''. For a more detailed 
list of problems with the PFJ I would recommend reading Dan Kegel's 
analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
    Sincerely,
    Michael Gill, Programmer/Analyst, OpenFirst



MTC-00019651

From: John Beveridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a home user, I have found over the last several years an 
increasing trend by Microsoft to eliminate the usability of non-
microsoft software, notably Netscape, QuickTime, and AOL. Whatever 
the reason given by the company, there is no doubt that I have 
increasingly seen Microsoft try to lock out anything that 
represented a threat to them or an area where they felt they could 
establish dominance. That trend is currently evident with the 
development of their proprietary Windows Media File. The standard 
for audio encoding is MP3, yet they will force people to adopt a 
standard that is not based out of merit but rather because their 
market share allows them to make decisions for consumers. Because 
the company has a world wide market share of nearly 96% of all 
consumer desktops there is no possible way for real competition or 
development to take place that is not sanctioned by the company and 
as such does not represent the protection of my rights as a 
consumer. The failure to address the issue only emboldens them to 
continue. If it is the intent to create a competitive and viable 
community where the consumer has the advantage of technology and 
pricing as a result of competition among various vendors than it is 
clear that the issue must not be addressed in a manner that is not 
punitive toward the Microsoft Corporation. There is no way to 
restrict a monopoly without damaging it in some way and any action 
that does not eliminate the monopolistic power of Microsoft is 
punitive action taken instead toward the consumer.
    John Beveridge



MTC-00019652

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my concerns over the Proposed Final 
Judgement (PFJ) in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. The PFJ fails to 


[[Page 26755]]


address many technical issues and marketplace realities, leaving 
Microsoft free to continue its malfeasance, different in method 
only, if at all. The PFJ fails to protect the interests of the 
public. Of all the many issues I have with the PFJ, I object most 
strongly to the failure to provide a method of enforcement, which 
means the courts become by default the method of enforcement. This 
is unsatisfactory as it permits Microsoft to employ anti-competitive 
practices (and the vague terms of the PFJ allow for many such 
opportunities) until such time as the matter may be resolved in 
court. If the delay caused by litigation forces a would-be 
competitor out of business (rather likely in the rapidly evolving 
world of commercial software) Microsoft wins, regardless of the 
court verdict.
    In short, any settlement must provide for a quick method to 
address violations of that settlement. The Technical Committee is a 
good start, but they must be given power to sanction.
    Sincerely yours,
    Jim Gamble
    Warrenton, VA



MTC-00019653

From: Nathaniel Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am a US Citizen currently resident in Piedmont, California, 
and am writing to state my displeasure with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. While there are many problems with it currently (e.g., I 
agree with all of the points made by Dan Kegel in his ``On the 
Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft'', http:/
/www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), I would like to highlight one 
in particular.
    That is the way the proposal neglects to include any remedy with 
regards to Microsoft Office, or to say anything about document 
formats. As an academic, consumer, and programmer, I have been 
increasingly frustrated by the practical necessity to use Microsoft 
products in order to read papers, view presentations, and generally 
exchange information with those around me-Microsoft's monopoly 
implies that many documents are only viewable using Microsoft's 
software. There are other programs which attempt to make the content 
of these files available, but they are extremely hampered (generally 
to the point of uselessness) by Microsoft's refusal to document the 
file formats. The settlement should include Microsoft Office in its 
definition of Middleware (as the definition used by the Finding of 
Fact does), and apply all the concomitant remedies. Moreover, 
Microsoft should be required to document its file formats, as 
otherwise consumers and organizations are forced to continue to use 
Microsoft Office to maintain compatibility with anyone they wish to 
exchange documents with, and no competition is introduced into the 
marketplace. In my personal experience, the use of Microsoft 
software is frighteningly often a prerequisite to entry in the 
marketplace of ideas, and the proposal does nothing to remedy this. 
There are many problems with the current proposal; as it stands it 
will not bring relief. I support any changes which favor Microsoft's 
competitors, and in particular any changes which will increase 
competition in the office product market-keeping in mind that 
in this area, interoperability is a prerequisite to competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Nathaniel Smith
    121 Fairview Ave.
    Piedmont, California 94610
    Phone: (510) 654-5584



MTC-00019654

From: Freiheit
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement before the court in the Microsoft anti-
trust trial is an atrocity to the computing industry and to consumer 
choice. When Microsoft appealed District Judge Thomas Pennfield 
Jackson's ruling, the Court of Appeals upheld his judgement that 
Microsoft violated anti-trust laws and is holding an illegal 
monopoly with their Windows operating systems.
    Such a ruling by the Appeals Court cannot go unpunished, but the 
current settlement made between the US Department of Justice and 
Microsoft Corp. will utterly fail to punish Microsoft for their 
illegal monopoly practices. I cannot count the times I have heard 
Windows users complain about instability and insecurity in Windows 
and comment that they want something better. However Microsoft's 
stanglehold ont he market and their proven illegal tactics have 
consistently crushed all quality competition (IBM's OS/2, Be Inc's 
BeOS, Apple's MacOS which despite three years of growing popularity 
still holds less than 10% of the home and business PC market and 
which, believe it or not, includes a number of Microsoft programs 
such as Internet Explorer an Outlook Express). Not only is Microsoft 
monopolizing the IBM-compatible PC market but they are also stifling 
innovation and competition in the Macintosh PC market by cutting off 
system preload deals for other web browser and email developers.
    The American people are sick and tired of Microsoft and Windows 
but virtually powerless to do anything to change the situation 
because the US Department of Justice refuses to punish Microsoft for 
their proven illegal business practices. The US Department of 
Justice has sold out to big business.
    Theodore Roosevelt must be turning over in his grave.



MTC-00019655

From: Paul Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a concerned citizen and a concerned consumer who wants to 
speak out about the potential settlement with Microsoft. I believe 
that it would be irresponsible of the government to allow Microsoft 
to continue doing business as it has done over the last decade. 
Unfortunately, the proposed settlement does not do enough to 
encourage Microsoft to alter those practices. Microsoft is well-
known for its predatory practices against rival companies and its 
aggressive maneuvering against start-up companies who bring 
innovation into the market place. Microsoft has overstated its role 
as an innovator in the technology sector: many of their 
``innovations'' are actually adaptations of other 
technologies. Two primary examples that illustrate this point are 
Microsoft's copying of the ``look and feel'' of the 
Macintosh operating system in their implementation of Windows 95-
Windows ME, and Microsoft's copying of the basic Internet browser 
and destroying of a viable business model of their competitor, 
Netscape. Microsoft has done considerable harm to innovation by the 
use of their aggressive tactics. I understand Microsoft's importance 
in the modern economy. Microsoft is a widely held stock and many 
Americans rely on this stock for security in their portfolios or 
retirement plans. Unfortunately, the costs that the consumers face 
in the future has much greater down-side for Americans and world 
consumers. For instance, In January 2002, an internal Microsoft memo 
was leaked to the public in which it was made clear that Linux is 
now a clear target for the use of aggressive business tactics. This 
indicates that Microsoft has no serious interest in modifying their 
past behaviors. If the Department of Justice allows a prescedent to 
be set now that is as lenient on Microsoft as this settlement is, 
Microsoft will be less fearful of any actions in the future. This 
should concern us all. Please remember the opinion of this 
concerned, voting citizen during your deliberations about the best 
method to ensure security for the consumers and protection for the 
values of a market system where competition is encouraged, not 
suffocated.
    Paul C. Tackett
    743 Cambridge Drive
    Battle Creek, MI 49015-4601



MTC-00019656

From: Steve Nelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to express my distaste with the proposed US vs. 
Microsoft settlement. The area that I am most concerned about is the 
lack of provisions to correct the anti-trust violations that were 
determined by the U.S. Circuit court in DC The provisions do not 
allow third-party developers the same access to the Windows API as 
currently enjoyed by the Microsoft developers, nor do they restrict 
Microsoft from unilaterally changing those same API's in such a way 
that causes other applications to break (such as Samba, Netscape, 
etc.).
    Steve Nelle




MTC-00019657

From: Fox Stephen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I'm writing to add my voice against the proposed settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft in the antitrust case.



[[Page 26756]]


    Its my opionion that the proposed settlement will do nothing to 
restore competition in the market and that it will only serve to 
reinforce Microsoft's monopoly. I vote against the settlement. You 
should listen closely to statements made by Barksdale of Netscape 
and comments from Dan Kegel. The software industry has endured a 
long night against an entrenched monopoly who has and continues to 
act illegally to preserve and extend that monopoly. Continued 
Litigation is preferable to this settlement. I am a US Citizen
    Stephen Fox
    13241 Norton Avenue
    Chino, CA 91710



MTC-00019658

From: Robert J. Krum, M.D. 503-571-5648
To: microsoft atr
Date: 1/23/02 9:48pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I did not write the following letter, but it summarizes my 
concerns:
    ``I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is 
compounded.''
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Krum, MD



MTC-00019659

From: Andrew Hagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it's a bad idea. It lets Microsoft off too easy.
    Andrew Hagen



MTC-00019660

From: Christopher L
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I, as do many others, agree with the problems 
identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). If this settlement is allowed to 
go through in its present state it will only confirm the fact that 
Microsoft is able to do as they please and then buy their way out of 
it after the fact. Please DO NOT allow the travesties committed by 
Microsoft against not only their competitors but computer users 
worldwide go unpunished. Something must be done, and it must be done 
now. I thank you for taking the time to read my e-mail and I trust 
you will take it into consideration and do the right thing.
    Christopher L. Carlevato



MTC-00019661

From: Candacehawthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:53pm
Subject: I Don't Get It
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am still puzzled how Microsoft is harming anyone. All I see 
are corporations that can't compete on their own merit. I have use 
Microsoft and Netscape. I try all new products and always go back to 
Microsoft because it's just better and easier to use. I don't feel a 
case ever should have been brought against Microsoft from the 
Clinton administration. The DOJ has turned Microsoft into the days 
free money bank. It's like putting up a flag FREE MONEY, just file 
your court papers. This is criminal what America is doing to it's 
best and brightest corporation. Bundling is necessary and without 
Microsoft technology would not be where it is today. We should be 
thanking Microsoft not killing them. It's weighing down the entire 
stock market all these law suits. Lets get this over with, can't the 
process be made so Microsft won't keep facing a bottomless pit of 
law suits.
    Sincerely,


[[Page 26757]]


    Candace Hawthorne
    New Orleans, LA



MTC-00019658

From: Robert J. Krum, M.D. 503-571-5648
To: microsoft atr
Date: 1/23/02 9:48pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I did not write the following letter, but it summarizes my 
concerns:
    ``I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is 
compounded.''
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Krum, MD



MTC-00019659

From: Andrew Hagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it's a bad idea. It lets Microsoft off too easy.
    Andrew Hagen



MTC-00019660

From: Christopher L
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I, as do many others, agree with the problems 
identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). If this settlement is allowed to 
go through in its present state it will only confirm the fact that 
Microsoft is able to do as they please and then buy their way out of 
it after the fact. Please DO NOT allow the travesties committed by 
Microsoft against not only their competitors but computer users 
worldwide go unpunished. Something must be done, and it must be done 
now. I thank you for taking the time to read my e-mail and I trust 
you will take it into consideration and do the right thing.
    Christopher L. Carlevato



MTC-00019661

From: Candacehawthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:53pm
Subject: I Don't Get It
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am still puzzled how Microsoft is harming anyone. All I see 
are corporations that can't compete on their own merit. I have use 
Microsoft and Netscape. I try all new products and always go back to 
Microsoft because it's just better and easier to use. I don't feel a 
case ever should have been brought against Microsoft from the 
Clinton administration. The DOJ has turned Microsoft into the days 
free money bank. It's like putting up a flag FREE MONEY, just file 
your court papers. This is criminal what America is doing to it's 
best and brightest corporation. Bundling is necessary and without 
Microsoft technology would not be where it is today. We should be 
thanking Microsoft not killing them. It's weighing down the entire 
stock market all these law suits. Lets get this over with, can't the 
process be made so Microsft won't keep facing a bottomless pit of 
law suits.
    Sincerely,
    Candace Hawthorne
    New Orleans, LA



MTC-00019662

From: Tim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am offended and very angry with the proposed final settlement. 
This settlement does not have any significant affect on Microsoft 
monopolies. Note that I spelled monpolies plural because Microsoft 
has a much larger range than most seem to notice. Microsoft has 
unrestricted and illegal monopolies in the following and other 
catagories: Operating Systems, Desktops, Internet Software(Primarily 
Browsers), Development Tools(Primarily Microsoft Visual C++), Office 
Software, Development API's, and Game Development Tools and API's. 
Most Microsoft products have been PROVEN to be inferior to 
competetion, but because of Microsoft's monopoly(or more accurately: 
stranglehold) over the the areas of competetion. Most consumers do 
not truly have a choice of products. Because of Microsoft's dictator 
position most people respect and believe Microsoft without much 
doubt. Microsoft can easily spread lies about competetion. 
Microsoft's existance has succeeded in damaging the software 
industry and lowering and destroying standards. Competetors do not 
have a equal chance for a customer because of Microsoft's marketing 
power and size. Much of Microsoft's sales in operating systems are 
in Windows pre-loaded systems. Microsoft has ABSOLUTE and COMPLETE 
control over pre-loaded operating systems. All stores selling PCs 
with pre-loaded Operating Systems, offer ONLY PCs with Microsoft 
Windows pre-loaded, offering a superior competetor NO chance in this 
area. By loosening Microsoft's control over icons and short-cuts on 
their OWN operating system, you do not affect their position at all! 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices include keeping Windows software 
from existing on other operating systems. One of which is a Game 
API/SDK called DirectX. This is of a large concern to me being a 
game developer(Programmer and Designer). Microsoft establishes 
DirectX(Which is a inferior API) as the only available core API for 
games and since it is property of Microsoft, Microsoft has control 
over the games.
    Microsoft uses the fact that it has established enough control 
over the game industry to force DirectX to be used in most games so 
that they can keep the games from possibly being ran on another 
operating system. A good addition to a final settlement would be to 
port DirectX to Linux and possibly other operating systems. It is 
important that Linux be the primary OS because it is the only fit 
competetor and the most widely used(except for Windows of course).
    A harsh settlement must be purposed for this case!! This current 
settlement allows Microsoft to continue its monopoly without many 
problems. If this settlement is not replaced or admended by a 
harsher settlement, Microsoft could further damager or even destroy 
the software industry! I am outraged by the court's failure to care 
about a proper punishment for such a company/empire!



MTC-00019663

From: Scott Schrader
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been agahst that the Department of Justice would 
basically bow to Microsoft yet again in another premature settlement 
against Federal antitrust law violations. Microsoft is not just 
another competitor, they are a sledgehammer tightening the vise 
around the sensitive parts of everybody in the Intel-compatible PC 
business. It is not possible to punish Microsoft with a 
``conduct watch'' on past findings of this case, because 
the dynamic and hyper-speed technology has already moved on. 
Limiting their plugins and browser distribution will not make a 
difference.
    Right now, Microsoft is trying to hijack the Internet. Through 
their usual use of non-standard ``standards'' and bogus 
polls, like the ZDnet England poll on use of Java versus ``dot-
net'' technology preferences in software development, Microsoft 
is trying to direct businesses to put their order, service, 
procurement, and customer support standards on ``dot-net'' 
proprietary technologies. Technologies that Microsoft will only 
permit full support on in their own Windows operating systems. Which 
will kill all trusted transaction systems in Unix and other solid, 
secure real-time capable operating systems. Only extreme niche 
products, like the stock industry clearance system with its unique 
and desperately-real-time crashingly-heavy transaction load will 
have any traction against Microsoft. In addition to which, Microsoft 
has finally admitted in a Bill Gates strategy letter in the past 
week, that they have a wide-open system that is not safe or secure 
at all, and the company needs to change its primary focus to nailing 
the barn doors shut to slow down the hacker parade through MS-
powered sites.
    I believe the only possibility of effective remedy against 
Microsoft is a structural remedy, and as a resident of Minnesota, I 
prefer something along the lines of the nine dissident States 
requiring a breakup of the Microsoft cartel along business lines. If 
that is not done, as one Tom Toles cartoon had it, Microsoft will 
have integrated the US government, and it will be an icon in the 
corner of the startup window.
    Scott Schrader
    376 Labore Road #212
    Little Canada, MN 55117
    January 23, 2002
    I have been computing since 1975.



MTC-00019664

From: Barbara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To who this may concern:
    Subject:Netscape's antitrust suit against Microsoft I would like 
to express my opinion reguarding this issue. As a user of both 
netscape and explorer i find that is is very difficult to obtain a 
copy of netscape and explorer is auto maticlly there. I personlly 
perfer the user interface of Netscape over Explorer. Since Netscape 
is the most use browser it should come already installed on the PC's 
along with exploerer. Microsoft already has the opereating systems 
under wraps it not right for them to have all the peripheral 
software as well. It seem they want us consumer to forget that there 
are other products out there. Out of sight out of mind. It would not 
be hard to allow us the ability to choose. It a real pain to have to 
down load it from the interenet.
    Back when we use DOS it never interfered with the programs it 
simply allowed us to access them and use them. Now you can't do any 
thing with out Microsoft strong hold. Its like we are at their 
mercy-like an ``electronic hostage'' kept in the 
dark about anything out there that could be have value.
    Barb



MTC-00019665

From: Bryan Landsiedel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Thank you,
    Bryan Landsiedel
    1030 Fairview Dr.
    Lawrenceburg, IN 47025



MTC-00019666

From: Dan Lowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to express my concern about this settlement. It 
seems to me that under the proposed plan, Microsoft will be given a 
convenient way into the low-income education market, a market it 
currently does not control.
    Why does the settlement work to actually extend their territory? 
Isn't part of the problem the existing scope of Microsoft's power? I 
don't feel it makes sense to reward Microsoft for their behavior. 
This is sort of like handing a bag full of money to a convicted 
thief and then handing him the keys to your car. What is going to 
happen in a few years when the operating system and applications on 
the computers that these schools are given are hopelessly out of 
date? Microsoft will have a guaranteed source of income, because 
these schools will be forced to pay Microsoft's upgrade fees. These 
schools, by definition, can not afford to do so. This settlement 
puts money in the hands of Microsoft at the expense of the school 
districts. If you are not familiar with the proposal that Redhat 
Software has made, you can read about it before continuing with my 
letter: http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press-usschools.html
    I support Redhat's proposal, simply because:
    A) it means that more computers can be purchased overall, which 
is a good thing all around.


[[Page 26758]]


    B) it means that when it comes time to upgrade the operating 
systems and applications on these computers, the schools will not be 
forced to pay Microsoft's upgrade fees. They will be able to upgrade 
at no cost (other than the cost of having some human being perform 
the work of upgrading-a cost that would be entailed in the 
original proposal anyway). Permitting Microsoft to push its way into 
yet another market, extending the very monopoly power that we seek 
to control, is an unacceptable solution. (I am not affiliated in any 
way with Redhat Software, nor do I own any stock in their company or 
any related company).
    Thank you for your attention.
    Daniel M. Lowe
    Senior Internet Systems Engineer
    P.O. Box 5725
    Willowick, OH 44095
    (216) 272-6834



MTC-00019667

From: Neal Roscoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I urge you to take specific action against Microsoft for the 
laws it has broken and most importantly for the laws it will break 
if it is not handed a stiff penalty. The proposed settlement is a 
slap in the face to consumers, the law and Microsoft's competitors 
by allowing Microsoft to gain further market share in the education 
market, the one area it does NOT have a monopoly. They should be 
forced to give their money to a fund that buys Apple or other non-
Windows products.
    This company has proven it will do whatever it takes to gain 
market share and sell more products, even it it means taking steps 
that are anti-competitive and hurtful to the consumer.
    Please stop Microsoft's unfair practices ASAP. -
    Neal Roscoe
    13017 Woodbridge St.
    Studio City, CA 91604
    818.986.4633



MTC-00019668

From: Skimble Skamble Adept
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I do not feel that the proposed settlement properly reflects on 
the misdeeds of Microsoft in abusing its monoply. Leveling the field 
between it and its competitors by lowering the switching costs among 
them seems more of an appropriate remedy.
    Thank you,
    Phillip Hankins



MTC-00019669

From: Chris Phoenix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the Microsoft settlement. It does not do nearly 
enough to correct the wrongs that Microsoft has done in the past. 
Microsoft has benefitted in both earnings and market share from 
activities that are simply illegal. Much of Microsoft's money was 
earned at the direct expense of other companies, many of which are 
now bankrupt. Any settlement that allows Microsoft to keep the 
illegally earned portion of its money, and does little to strengthen 
the other companies that are struggling under the unfair burden of 
an overly-funded overly-competitive monopoly, cannot be in the 
public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Phoenix
    M.S. Computer Science, Stanford ``91



MTC-00019670

From: C Lovejoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft Settlement: As a long time user and 
early adopter of personal computers, I believe that the Microsoft 
settlement is fair and we the people, including the US Government 
should move on to more productive use of tax dollars. Microsoft has 
clearly demonstrated actions and willingness to do more than 
required to ensure a competitive environment. The reason Microsoft 
products have done well is through hard work and constant 
improvement to win out! For example, let's remember the early 
spreadsheet ``war'': First there was VisiCalc-an 
instant hit in the market Then there was Lotus 123, which took the 
lead through improved features. Later there was Borland's product 
that had great graphics and could emulate 123 to make a switch easy 
(I think Lotus tried the legal means to stop Borland from using 123 
menus.) Microsoft tried to beat out Lotus 123 with Excel, but lost 
on the first try because the product was not attractive to users It 
took a lot of R&D, and 4 versions before Excel from Microsoft 
could offer better features. I was a devoted 123 user and thought I 
would never consider Excel. Eventually the features of Excel got so 
good I gave it a try and finally converted as it could help me more 
at work and home projects.
    I went through the same experience with the Netscape browser. It 
took a lot of convincing and product revisions, but I finally found 
the features in Microsoft Explorer and continued improvements to 
Explorer better. My decision was based on features, not price (both 
were free). If Netscape and later AOL/Netscape had put more R&D 
into the product, it would still be on the top of my list! So 
please, put all this to one side and move on. Perhaps in the future 
some other product will win my respect... Until then, I go for the 
best featured product, regardless of the creator!
    Charlie Lovejoy



MTC-00019671

From: Lisa McGraw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems contrary to anti-monopolistic efforts to enforce 
against Microsoft a settlement which not only allows, but 
encourages, an increase in their user base. It would be more 
appropriate to compel the company to provide competitors'' 
products. L. McGraw



MTC-00019672

From: Kevin Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement comments
    I have been following this case against Microsoft, and have 
followed various other legal actions against that same company. The 
proposed settlement is certainly not fair or helpful.
    Microsoft has proven repeatedly that they are able and willing 
to disregard rules and laws. They have broken their own past 
agreements with the government. They will exploit any loophole, and 
have nearly infinite money to battle in court. This settlement does 
nothing to punish Microsoft for their illegal behavior. It does 
little if anything to prevent future transgressions. It won't really 
help competitors, nor will it make much difference for consumers. I 
urge you to go back and create a stronger and more enforceable 
solution.
    Thanks,
    Kevin Smith
    US Citizen
    Foster City, CA



MTC-00019673

From: (Paul Hounsell)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern;
    While I am not an American citizen I would like to respectfully 
submit the following for your consideration. Since Microsoft has 
proprietary file formats for its office documents I am forced to buy 
a computer with Microsoft products on it if I want to share 
documents with other businesses. I have no choice really and to make 
matters worse, once any company upgrades its Microsoft office 
products, then everybody is forced to do the same just so businesses 
can continue to share documents. If Microsoft was the Ford motor 
company, then everybody would have to drive Fords on a Ford-only 
highway. No other choice allowed. If you choose to drive a GM then 
it may or may not work on the Ford highway, but none of your cargo 
would fit inside right, if at all. Also you would not be able to 
share your cargo with a Ford.
    I would like to propose a punishment on Microsoft that would 
totally open the Windows market for other companies to offer a wide 
variety of products. The issue is; how are Word, Excel, Power Point, 
etc documents formatted. If Microsoft were forced to make public the 
file format structure of its office products then any company would, 
for example, be able to write a word processor that could read and 
write Word documents properly and customers would have a choice as 
to what word processor they use. The same is true for all Microsoft 
office products.
    To be fair the law should be such that any software company that 
own more that 70% of a market segment should have to do the same. Of 
course if the software is ONLY used in a national security 
application then that software should be kept secret.
    Thank you for your time
    Paul Hounsell
    Osgoode, Ontario


[[Page 26759]]


    phone 826-1745



MTC-00019674

From: EarlyTrekker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have followed this subject with interest from the beginning. 
Except for Judge Jackson's public statements which were less than 
jurist prudent his findings are consistent with the evidence 
presented. Is there no Anti-Trust law enforcement anymore? Heck even 
a second Federal Judge has struck down part of the settlement 
agreement which would require Microsoft to ``supply'' 
(read low cost advertising) computers to Public schools.
    Just remember that while -you- have to take the 
political heat now. You will also have to -live- in the 
Society that is saddled with the outcome of this case. Chose 
carefully, choose wisely. Microsoft has -clearly- 
conducted business in a predatory fashion and should be required to 
pay the price.
    The price we -all- will pay is only 
-higher- the longer justice is delayed.
    John K. Bullock
    Knoxville, TN



MTC-00019675

From: Paul Mugar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the proposed settlement of Microsoft with the 
DOJ and the bipartisan group of State Attorneys General in the 
original antitrust case. Please do not be distracted by extraneous 
matters.
    Sincerely,
    H. C. Mugar
    2 Inez Street
    Camarillo, CA 93012-8104
    (805) 482-5327



MTC-00019676

From: Erylon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No! I see little in the terms of this settlement to prevent 
Microsoft Corporation from continuing to bully small and large 
companies to adhere to their system. I see nothing that will prevent 
Microsoft from developing proprietary file extensions, thus 
preventing non-MS companies from developing programs and systems 
that can co-exist and compete with Microsoft. I see nothing that 
will prevent a company that controls over 90% of the desktop market 
from continuing to leverage that market by preventing competition by 
keeping their system's base code and extensions secret.
    sincerely,
    e. hines



MTC-00019677

From: Ron Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to speak in opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement with the U.S. The remedies will have little or no real 
effect on Microsoft's monopoly of computer software.
    Sincerely
    Ron Price



MTC-00019678

From: Jacob Dorsett Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:04pm
Subject: Dear Sirs;
    Dear Sirs;
    I am continually dismayed by the lack of consideration for the 
consumer which is shown by the Microsoft Corporation, while at the 
same time they blatantly disregard laws of the united states which 
were designed to protect competition and innovation. In the past 
when corporations formed monopolies and used them to stifle creative 
advancement in their industries the Government has stepped in to 
make sure that the greed of individual corporations does not harm 
the process of technological progress. However in this case it seems 
that the greed and disregard of the corporation in question is 
reflected in the greed and disregard of the administration which has 
insisted upon supporting the corporation because they themselves are 
businessmen who wish they were in the position of Microsoft. I fear 
that this is the beginning of a new period of corporate opression of 
the populace. But if my fears come true, unlike the previous 
centuries, this time the corporations will not only enslave the 
people through corrupt control of the government and the economy, 
they will control information and stifle free speech and expression 
to serve their own greed and ambition. It seems that it may already 
be too late, and that corporate influence on the government may have 
already reached the point where the good of the people is never 
considered at all. I have been forced to use microsoft products 
before, but I have never installed any of them on my personal 
machines, nor will I ever if I can help it. Their inferior nature 
puts at jeopardy national security and the security of everyone's 
data. They use their position of monopoly to force inferior products 
down the throats of manufacturers and consumers alike, and yet the 
government backs down from its challenge to these practices. 
Apparently money is all that matters to this administration.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jacob Miller



MTC-00019679

From: Monterey Gardiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit 
the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes 
against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is 
able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot 
commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their 
illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their 
abuses and not for the American people in general. While the Court's 
desire that a settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong 
to reach an unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong 
that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Monterey Gardiner



MTC-00019680

From: Richard MacLeod
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been hurting the industry by starving inovation. 
No company can or will compete with them. Free market forces are not 
working. Will the Government have to act again in another five 
years?
    Hopefull.



MTC-00019682

From: Jorge E Solorzano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:02pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    Greetings,
    As a user of both Netscape (including the gold edition) and 
Explorer (I tried 3 revisions of both before deciding which software 
to use), I experienced more performance to my needs and better 
service from Microsoft at a much cheaper cost. This in itself makes 
me believe that Microsoft has a very competitive mentality that has 
an advantage over their competition. That is a good thing, however, 
will that help this countries growth/economy through reduction of 
employment (Netscape's employee's) and/or less competition? The 
other question that comes to mind is the consumers interest in 
upgrading if costs increase especially at a time of uncertainties in 
the economical conditions (iExploer is separated?), hence impacting 
a larger employment pool. Well, this tells me that compromises are 
needed to insure the pain of the economic downturn and upsides are 
equally available, and competition is needed to progress the stress 
of drive to continue development needed in this country. With those 
thoughts, I have a hard time buying that AOL/Netscape has right to 
sue Microsoft for the amount their asking on laws that were not in 
USA's law or records. Why should Microsoft be punished for 
Netscape's failure to develop employee commitment to compete 
(Values)? At the same time, I do have to question whether 
Microsoft's delay's added to the damage of competition. to increase 
their own 


[[Page 26760]]


gains. What a tough decision. Well, I think that there is 
a compromise somewhere in there. I do hope Netscape gets some 
compromises (but no advantages over iExployer, but equal) to 
software integration into Windows OS agreements and maybe some $ 
damages for prolonging this courts development at their competitions 
costs, but no where near what they're asking. I'm not associated 
with either Microsoft or AOL/Netscape. I am not a Lawyer or educated 
in law, other then common public knowledge. I did feel that maybe my 
opinion would count. Thanks for reading this far! :-)
    Regards,
    Jorge



MTC-00019683

From: Anthony Spadaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:04pm
Subject: comments on MS
    Hello-
    I've been around computers for 22 years now, growing up in the 
days when Microsoft wasn't the giant monopoly it is today. I'm very 
upset at how little has been done to Microsoft because of it's 
bullying tactics. It's unfair that a company that claims to 
innovate, only does it when it's being threatened, and then the 
monopoly just buys out the competition, then crushes the remains and 
removes the ideas then claims it as it's own. A perfect example of 
this is Microsoft buying the SGI code for Open GL. If something 
isn't done, the way that Microsoft will deal with this is by getting 
rid of it's Direct X competition (Open GL). This hasn't been the 
first time this has been done.
    I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that Microsoft is a 
monopoly in the worst way. They are buying their way out of paying 
the price for breaking the law. It's unfair to other companies 
trying to make the PC industry the wide, free, and innovated space 
it was years ago. Not to be so sarcastic, but here is how most 
people see the way things are going, you can apply this to almost 
any company:
    1) It finally goes to court after a year
    2) Microsoft appeals and tries to delay every court date
    3) Microsoft is found guilty
    4) They appeal
    5) Two years have passed
    6) More Microsoft products dominate the market
    7) Microsoft settles with an arbitrator for $10 million
    8) company is pissed
    9) Microsoft wins
    Please do something about this. I don't want my future to be 
dominated by Microsoft. I can live with them, but not with the 
strangle hold they have currently. I think a firm judgment would be 
just. It's the right thing to do.
    Thank you for allowing our comments to be heard
    Anthony Spadaro



MTC-00019684

From: Steve K
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MICROSOFT IS BAD. DONT ALLOW THEM THE FREEDOM TO BE A MONOPOLY. 
THEIR UNDER-HANDED DEALINGS HAVE GONE ON TOO LONG. DONT GIVE IN. 
MICROSOFT ARE GUILTY.



MTC-00019685

From: Barbara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To who this may concern:
    Subject:Netscape's antitrust suit against Microsoft I would like 
to express my opinion reguarding this issue. As a user of both 
netscape and explorer i find that is is very difficult to obtain a 
copy of netscape and explorer is auto maticlly there. I personlly 
perfer the user interface of Netscape over Explorer. Since Netscape 
is the most use browser it should come already installed on the PC's 
along with exploerer. Microsoft already has the opereating systems 
under wraps it not right for them to have all the peripheral 
software as well. It seem they want us consumer to forget that there 
are other products out there. Out of sight out of mind. It would not 
be hard to allow us the ability to choose. It a real pain to have to 
down load it from the interenet.
    Back when we use DOS it never interfered with the programs it 
simply allowed us to access them and use them. Now you can't do any 
thing with out Microsoft strong hold. Its like we are at their 
mercy-like an ``electronic hostage'' kept in the 
dark about anything out there that could be have value.
    Barb



MTC-00019686

From: Bonderman, Colin Lee
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:05pm
Subject: One mans complaint against the proposed settlement
    Dear sir or madam,
    It has reciently been brought to my attention that the 
department of justice intends to deal microsoft a slap on the wrist 
in the form of a weak settlement. I strongly protest this on many 
different levels, however, i will restrain my comments to just one. 
Too many companies in this country have the attitude that there is 
no reason to fear the laws of this country. The attitude, it seems, 
is that any illegal action can be dealt with by simply either 
donating money to the right politicians, shreding the revelent 
documents, or litigating the dammages down to nothing. Ive seen this 
time and time again and i can tell you that most people i talk to 
feel that the government only exists to serve big corporations and 
that the laws that are ment to protect us are meaningless. Please do 
your part to reverse this bitterness; deal out a real punishment to 
microsoft, not just a wink and token fine.
    thank you
    colin bonderman



MTC-00019687

From: Robert J Hilliard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:04pm
Subject: Why are we punishing MIcrosoft for doing a good job?
    Why do we want to punish Microsoft for doing a better job than 
the rest of the competition? Is there no one out there that can 
compete with better quality products and services? If the government 
wants to help, don't punish Microsoft. If anything, help out 
Microsoft's competion. In the long run, the competition will then be 
better off, which is pretty much all that they want isn't it? 
Microsoft will get that much better and still beat the competition. 
How we can criticize Micrsoft making deals with PC manufacturers to 
sell PC's packaged with Windows. Should we also criticize Coke and 
Pepsi for making similar deals with fast food chains? I'd like a 
Coke. Sorry... is Pepsi OK? Isn't this just all cold, hard business 
competition? I have been using a Microsoft operating system since 
DOS 2.0, but never felt pressured or forced into it. Until they got 
a lot of the Windows bugs worked out, I kept using DOS. And I used 
to wonder why MS-DOS was the main operating system available in 
stores. It became obvious to me that Microsoft made better business 
moves than the rest of the competion, plus they supplied an 
acceptable quality software product that was being continuously 
improved.
    When I began browsing the internet, I started by using Mosaic on 
Unix, then Netscape on Unix, then Netscape on Windows 3.1. I was a 
Netscape holdout for a long time, through WIndows 95 and then 
Windows NT 4.0, until Explorer simply got better than Netscape. I 
didn't feel pressured or forced into making the switch from Netscape 
to Explorer.



MTC-00019688

From: Gary Benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree completely with the settlement.
    Gary Benson



MTC-00019689

From: Daniel J Hannum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    The proposed settlement against Microsoft is insufficient simply 
because it does nothing to stop one of Microsoft's most effective 
means of leveraging their existing monopoly: the matter of secret 
formats and interfaces. It is entirely too easy for Microsoft to 
make the next version of Windows use some core ``technology 
X'' but nowhere does Microsoft ever document what 
``technology X'' is or how to write a program that 
interfaces with it. In this way, Microsoft will always have the 
better product because they are the -only- company that 
has the proper documentation of how to use ``technology 
X''. Everyone else must simply guess. They should be required 
to publish complete documentation for all protocols and file 
formats.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Daniel Hannum
    Computer Science Department
    Carnegie Mellon University



MTC-00019690

From: Matthew Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR



[[Page 26761]]


Date: 1/23/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writing to express my deep concern with the Microsoft anti-
trust case. I am a teacher and academic, with a concentration in 
internet technology. I wish to add my comment to the great body of 
criticism already compiled against Microsoft and its practices. 
Their behavior has been consistent and utter disregard of the 
welfare of the computer and IT industry, and the consuming public. 
The US DOJ must not back down from the more aggressive stance it 
held only 2 years ago. The most recent offers from the DOJ have been 
spineless, and seemingly politically motivated (with the shift in 
approach with the entrance of G. Bush).
    Again, I recommend that the DOJ pursue the anti-trust issue to 
the limits of the law and demand that Microsoft be restructured to 
eliminate the risk of the business exerting its domineering monopoly 
presence on the rest of the industry. It is bad practice for the 
market, bad for the consumer, and bad for the development of 
technology. Monopolies are inherently anti-competitive, and anti-
democratic. Technology, once forced under monopoly driven 
development, will always stunt technological progress. Please push 
towards a complete punishment and prevention program, allowing even 
for the break up of Microsoft. Do not accept any settlement from 
Microsoft, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
    Thank you
    Matthew Morgan
    4445 Old Gravenstein Hwy So
    Sebastopol, CA
    95472
    (707) 829 2247



MTC-00019691

From: Shawn Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I feel the judgement is a very bad idea.



MTC-00019692

From: Bill Nowlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor:
    I have been a computer user since 1985 and using the Internet 
since 1993 for both business and pleasure. I have generally been 
satisfied with Microsoft products as far as operating systems go, 
beginning with 3.1 through Windows 2000. However, when Windows 95 
did not give you ann option on whether-or-not you wanted to load the 
Microsoft Browser and eMail, I was rather upset because I was 
already very pleased with Netscape Navigator and Communicator. What 
upset me was that I did not have a choice and had to waste hard disk 
space on a program that I was never going to use. I searched the Web 
and found a shareware programs that would allow one to remove most 
of Microsoft Explorer from my hard disk, saving around 30Mb of hard 
disk space (Windows 95 and 98 only to the best of my knowlege).
    It also seemed that with many other software packages I wanted 
to use, it was a requirement that I be running Microsoft Explorer. 
Needless to say, I went with out those programs because I did not 
want to load up my hard disk with Explorer. Today, I use Window 2000 
Professional as my operating system. I have Explorer and Outlook 
Express loaded only because I had no choice if I wanted to use 2000 
as my OS. I am still using Netscape as my browser and email system. 
(an added feature to using Netscape is that no one seems to target 
Netscape with virus's-no VBE running in the background). As a 
person who is in the electronics industry and believes that 
competition makes products better and more affordable to the masses, 
I urge you to uphold the AOL suit against Microsoft for their 
Marketing tactics-that is, eliminating competition by not 
giving people the opportunity to make a choice of which Internet 
Browser to use. Thank you for your time in considering this very 
important decision concerning free trade.
    Respectively,
    Bill N.



MTC-00019693

From: Jenn Vesperman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not a US citizen, so you may choose to throw this letter 
out. However, in the case of global countries like Microsoft, 
decisions the US makes can affect us all. I am not a US citizen, but 
I am a citizen of the world, and a regular denizen of the Internet. 
I and my husband are among the people who keep it 
working-people who really understand the underlying technical 
issues. People who care about it, and who do the equivalent of 
repairing the roads and keeping them clean. If the Internet is to 
remain a truly global entity, and if it is to remain as 
inexpensively accessible as it currently is, those of us who work on 
it in our spare time, for free, need to continue to be able to do 
that.
    Our work is against the commercial interests of larger computer 
software companies, such as Microsoft. As it currently stands, much 
of the work of maintaining the Internet can be done by people who 
have never paid for proprietary certification-we have simply 
gone to our local university and studied computer science. We don't 
need to have their particular operating system-we can use any 
operating system we like. We don't need to use their 
software-we can use any software we like. This freedom makes 
it possible for us to do our work, without having paid a 
``tax'' to the major companies. And THAT makes it possible 
for us to do it for free-for ourselves, for charities, for 
programs that give computers to schools in poor districts. For 
whatever we wish. Having studied the proposed settlement, and the 
essays and articles the settlement has inspired, I feel that the 
settlement does not go far enough. It seems as if Microsoft is being 
allowed ``wiggle room''-that it can squirm out of 
the prohibitions simply by making extremely minor 
adjustments-adjustments that make no technical difference, or 
that make a technical difference that can be coded around. The major 
fault appears-from my reading, and I have not studied 
law- to be in the definitions. It seems that many aspects of 
the judgement are being defined too narrowly.
    As an example:
    * In industry terms an ``API''-applications 
programming interface-is any code library which allows or 
helps a programmer to interact with any other program. The other 
program is usually an operating system, but not necessarily. The 
programmer can be working on anything-an application, a piece 
of ``middleware'', or even another aspect of the operating 
system. * In the judgement, an ``API'' is defined as a 
code library between the Windows operating system and Microsoft 
middleware. That is a major difference, and it allows Microsoft to 
decide that code as basic as an installation library is not an API. 
(By industry definitions, it is.) If Microsoft can limit access to 
the installation library, it can choose who may and who may not 
write code for Windows- or at least, who can write code that 
is automatically installed by a nice, user-friendly system. This is 
a very significant barrier to entry in the application market. There 
are many other too-narrow definitions in the currently proposed 
settlement. A more complete-but not complete-list is 
available at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Thank you for listening.
    Jenn V.



MTC-00019694

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft should face the same consequences that 
any other monopoly would face.
    Bu- outs are NOT justice.



MTC-00019695

From: Jerry Ponko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an IT professional for the past fifteen years I would like to 
say that I am oppossed to the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ). The 
PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, but 
curiously allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system. As anectdotal evidence of 
Microsoft's past anti-competitive behavior against a small OS 
competitor, Be Inc., I present a quote from an article  by Byte Magazine's Scot Hacker: ``so 
little profit margin in the computer retail business, and with so 
little to set one brand of computer apart from another, it would 
seem that out-of-the-box dual-boot capabilities would be a 
tremendous differentiating factor for hardware vendors. It would 
seem that there would be financial incentives for computer vendors 
to be asking Be for 10,000-license deals. 
These bundling arrangements would be good for Be, good for 


[[Page 26762]]


OEMs, and good for consumers. In his own column, Gassie has written 
several times about Microsoft's Windows OEM License and the ways in 
which it limits the freedoms of PC OEMs. In July 2001, I spoke with 
Gassie to find out why no dual-boot computers with BeOS or Linux 
installed a longside Windows can be purchased today. In the 1998-1999 timeframe, ready to prime the pump with its desktop offering, Be 
offered BeOS for free to any major computer manufacturer willing to 
preinstall BeOS on machines alongside Windows. Although few in the Be community ever knew about the discussions, Gassie says that Be was 
engaged in enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and 
Hitachi. Taken together, preinstallation arrangements with vendors 
of this magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and 
BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with 
BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer 
reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License 
agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius) 
with BeOS preinstalled, but made changes to the bootloader ? 
rendering BeOS invisible to the consumer ? before shipping. 
Apparently, Hitachi received a little visit from Microsoft just 
before shipping the Flora Prius, and were reminded of the terms of 
the license.
    Be was forced to post detailed instructions on their web site 
explaining to customers how to unhide their hidden BeOS partitions. 
It is likely that most Flora Prius owners never even saw the BeOS 
installations to which they were entitled. `` Unsurprisingly, 
Be Inc. has since gone out of business and Microsoft has succeeded 
in crushing another competitor. If a small company like Be Inc. 
cannot succeed by giving away its OS for free to OEMs, what chance 
is there for any future competitors to Microsoft?
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products. Section III.B. also allows 
Microsoft to offer unspecified Market Development 
Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For instance, 
Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based on the 
number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems sold by 
that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly 
on Intel -compatible operating systems to increase its market share 
in other areas, such as office software, ARM-compatible operating 
systems, game consoles and home entertainment systems. By allowing 
these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to extend its 
monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to leverage it 
into new areas.
    Some of the remedies that various observers, including me, have 
thought appropriate are for Microsoft's preload agreements to be 
vacated and new ones prohibited, the opening of Microsoft's office 
suite data file formats, and the submission of present and future 
Microsoft networking protocols to an independent open standards 
body. Since I cannot address the whole PFJ as I want to be brief and 
time does not permit, I will state that the PFJ is riddled with loop 
holes in Microsoft's favor and does nothing to remedy Microsoft's 
illegal monopolist behavior. As it stands now, the PFJ would not be 
a slap on the wrist but would grant full permission to Microsoft to 
do what it's been doing, and more. Futhermore and curiously, the PFJ 
does not address the ill-gotten gains of Microsoft's past illegal 
monopolistic activities. How is that possible? Certainly bank 
robbers would not be given such generosity!
    Sincerely concerned,
    Jerold Ponko



MTC-00019696

From: Josh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed judgement 
posted here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm and here: 
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm For the better part of 
20 years, Microsoft has willfully taken part in the destruction of 
small companies with lower legal budgets. If they keep running our 
best minds out of business, pretty soon it will be Alfred E. Newman 
coming up with our ``great ideas''. I respectfully request 
that the proposed judgement is thrown out in favor of a much more 
restrictive solution.
    Sincerely,
    Joshua Fritsch



MTC-00019697

From: Mr. Alcourt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a systems administrator I have followed the news on the anti-
trust lawsuit against Microsoft with interest. I have been quite 
dismayed over the proposed settlment which amounts to little more 
than a political surrender. Microsoft is not having any remedy 
placed upon it that will have any real impact to prevent further 
monopoly abuses or even help remedy the abuse that they were found 
to have committed.
    Despite the fact that the breakup of Microsoft was overturned on 
appeal, the basic findings of fact were upheld, that Microsoft did 
illegally use their monopoly power to dominate the web browser 
market. Historically, Microsoft has a long history of monopoly 
abuses. They are known as the ``800 pound gorilla'' in the 
IT world, not by strength of their software, but by strength of 
their monopoly. The proposed settlement is even more troubling 
because Microsoft is one of the worst examples of software quality 
in the market today. They have helped lower the standard in software 
quality to the point that it is now expected that commercial 
software be delivered at best only partially usable, and completely 
unable to be used for even 24 hours without significant problems 
(similarly to how Windows 3.1 could not be used for such a period of 
time without problems.) This settlement does nothing to discourage 
Microsoft from abusing their monopoly power, and in fact, encourages 
them to be even more aggressive, knowing that what bears all 
appearance of a politically ordered settlement will be the dominant 
rule for dealings with Microsoft for at least the next five years.
    I urge you to abandon this proposed settlement and instead seek 
a solution to the problem of the Microsoft monopoly that does not 
involve giving Microsoft everything they offered months ago prior to 
them being found a monopoly that violated anti-trust law.
    Mr. Alcourt



MTC-00019698

From: Goudelocke, Ryan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to express my concern at the weakness and 
inefficacy of the proposed settlement of the government's antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft. As a user both of Microsoft's products 
and those of its erstwhile competitors like Be and Netscape 
Communications, I feel strongly that stiff and harsh measures need 
to be taken against this monopolistic company whose primary business 
strategy is maintenance of a stranglehold on the American 
information infrastructure. Remedial action against Microsoft will 
benefit not just the economy, but clearly our national security 
requires quality, secure alternatives to Microsoft's shoddy 
enterprise products. Short of breaking the company apart, which 
would be the most efficacious solution, strong limitations need to 
be enacted and enforced to keep other currently viable companies 
alive against the onslaught of Microsoft's anticompetitive 
tactics-I am thinking of Sun, Apple, Oracle and others. The 
DOJ need not worry about disruption of the economy or the 
information systems of this country. Better technology exists and 
needs only breathing room to show itself. You have seen the findings 
of fact-don't make a joke of technology jurisprudence. Put the 
justice in DOJ, please.
    Ryan M. Goudelocke
    2502 McGrath Avenue
    Baton Rouge, LA



MTC-00019699

From: Andrew Chen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with all of the statements found at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html Competition is good. Period. 
Competition should be fostered. Period. Innovation will not be 
stifled by competition. Period. Anti-trust legislation exists to 
ensure that there is competiton. Period. At a minimum, complete and 
full disclosure to the public, available without signing or 
consenting to any restriction on activities enabled as a consequence 
of, of all Microsoft APIs and source code of any sort for a period 
of time (I'd recommend 5 years) for all products being sold 
(including pre-orders), would ensure competition for Microsoft. 
They're a big company, they can handle it. They may need to refocus 
on mice and keyboards and 


[[Page 26763]]


the x-box hardware and technical support 
contracts as primary sources of revenue, but quite frankly, that's 
what the a substantial portion of the desktop PC industry has to do 
(either they're a hardware vendor, or, like Linux based companies, 
make money off of selling technical support 
contracts-Microsoft dominates too much of the software 
industry for any other software companies to be seriously considered 
as a significant part of the desktop PC industry, when looked at in 
terms of total revenue generated). Why should Microsoft be treated 
any different? Certainly not because of it's past crimes (it should 
suffer some form of punitive damage). Encourage competition. Period.
    That's your job as enforcers of Anti-Trust law. Period.
    Andrew Chen



MTC-00019700

From: crash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Here's my comment:
    The proposed settlement is unacceptable. I feel it's proof 
positive that qthe DOJ has totally caved in to the force of a 
scurrilous monopoly. The most overt example of this is in Section J 
1 of the Prohibited Conduct notes. You know the part, where you 
explicitly state that Microsoft's conduct regarding authentication 
and Digital Rights Management will never be subjected to oversight. 
Security is used as an excuse. There are ways to ensure security 
while providing oversight; in fact the onus should be on Microsoft 
to stay secure as their practices are scrutinized. If they aren't 
willing to come up with an acceptable secure oversight plan, there 
are thousands of incredibly bright people who can help you establish 
one, just ask around. Authentication and DRM are going to be the 
next digital battlegrounds in the endless cockfight we call the Free 
Market Economy. If this proposed settlement goes through, the world 
will suffer in ways you simply cannot imagine.
    And the rest of the settlement is also unacceptable, though I 
don't have the time to go into it right now. In closing, do not 
settle with Microsoft on the currently proposed terms. Either come 
up with a settlement which fixes the problems or drag them back in 
court and get a judge to impose a decent remedy. If you do anything 
less, history will remember your names, and not fondly. KeMpKeS
    ``The 22 babies born in New York City while the World Trade 
Center burned will never know what they missed. The last half of the 
20th century will seem like a wild party for rich kids, compared to 
what's coming now. The party's over, folks. The time has come for 
loyal Americans to Sacrifice. ... Sacrifice. ... Sacrifice.''
    -Hunter S. Thompson



MTC-00019701

From: Roland Bockhorst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the Microsoft Settlement because it is unfair to 
consumers and harms many Microsoft competitors. Please, there are 
many loopholes that make the proposed final judgment hardly even a 
slap on the wrist.
    As a computer professional, I have seen the diminishing of 
choice, computer security and quality of software during Microsoft's 
monopoly. It is time to seriously reign them in.
    I suggest forbidding the tying of hardware and software 
operating systems so a person is not forced to take an unwanted 
software package when a computer is purchased.
    If an information file is produced on a Microsoft product, 
(spreadsheet, word processor or database) I am almost forced to buy 
a Microsoft product in order to be able to read this infornmation 
file. This is fair nenither to consumers nor other software vendors. 
I therefore suggest opening the data interface descriptions so 
Microsoft software will interoperate with other software vendor's 
packages. I feel I own information and stories I have written and 
produced. I feel that that information is being hijacked if it 
cannot be easily and freely read by others who do not own specific 
Microsoft programs. Only a monopoly can enforce this situation 
against my will and the will of my readers. I am afraid that the 
computer industry will be set back many years if this inadequacy in 
the proposed settlement is not corrected.
    Sincerely,
    Roland Bockhorst
    2291 Orchid Dr.
    Sierra Vista, AZ 85635



MTC-00019702

From: Alex Alegado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea and an 
underhanded way for Microsoft gain marketshare without proper 
competition. The idea of Microsoft giving away software licenses 
that are of little real value and old hardware to schools pulls our 
heart strings but it has, at its core, a cynical motivation: In time 
these ``beneficiaries'' will have to upgrade their 
hardware and their software. Who will be there to sell licenses for 
new software? Who will reap financial reward far in excess of the 
financial penalty this settlement represents? Microsoft.
    Any settlement must be made to increase competition, not stymie 
it. A mere $1 billion dollar ``gift'' now will turn into a 
lucrative investment for Microsoft and it will be handed to them on 
a silver plate. Microsoft needs to suffer some penalty as a 
monopolist. That penalty should be significant-$10 billion, 
not $1 billion, lifetime licenses on software for all 
schools-something that really helps schools and hurts 
Microsoft. A $1 billion settlement is nothing to a company that make 
more than that in profit each month and has $30+ billion in the 
bank.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Alex Alegado,
    Prepress Supervisor, California Plasticard
    213.742.9852 Voice, 213.742.0086 FAX,



MTC-00019703

From: Clive Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    If comments from people outside of the United States carry any 
weight at all then I would like to register my protest at the slap 
on the wrist that is being proposed for Microsoft. This company has 
the most high handed attitude and is, in my opinion, the greatest 
hinderence to innovation and development of new products in the 
world today. I have worked in electronics and the computer industry 
for over 30 years and during that time have seen Microsoft 
effectivel strangle or take over companies that have any opportunity 
to oppose them.
    In Australia, where I live, the United States is viewed from the 
perspective of television and news, most of which comes across as 
extremely negative, probably due in part to not seeing the publicity 
campaigns that are run within the US, allowing us hopefully, a more 
subjective view of companies such as Microsoft. We have only the 
results of using the products and seeing alternatives disappear to 
judge the effectiveness of this organisation.
    Hopefully this may carry some small weight but I seriously doubt 
it.
    Yours Faithfully
    Clive Myers
    Network Admin



MTC-00019704

From: Grace Becker
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing this to express my thoughts on the settlement of 
this case. I truly hope that you decide to punish Microsoft in a 
manner that will make a difference. The current settlement will 
likely do nothing to change the way they abuse their monopoly 
position. At the very least, I hope that you make them abide by the 
SET STANDARDS. They should not be allowed to change the standards in 
any way. They should also be required to sell WINDOWS without the 
bundling of all their other products. Finally, I believe that they 
should have to open up Office file formats so there could be 
converters put in place for the competition. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Grace Becker



MTC-00019705

From: Daryl Nash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Department of Justice,
    I wish to voice my displeasure with the recent settlement 
proposal in the US v. Microsoft case. Microsoft has been found guilt 
of monopolistic practices and as such, should have serious penalties 
imposed upon them in order to discourage such behavior, especially 
as they expand into other markets such as cable, telecom, ISP, and 
home entertainment.
    Unfortunately, I don't have the solution. Splitting Microsoft 
into two companies 


[[Page 26764]]


appears to have been taken off the table as an 
option, but the punishment given to Microsoft should be sufficent to 
impede their monopolistic practices, and perhaps monitor the company 
to help ensure that other companies and the free market are not 
endangered in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Daryl Nash



MTC-00019706

From: Pamela
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has gotten away 
with enough-don't you dare let them off easy!! We, the 
American people, depend on you to do what is right for us, not for 
monopolistic corporations. If you fail us on this, it will be one 
more confirmation that government doesn't care about us, only about 
those who can line your pockets! Do the right thing-do not 
settle against Microsoft! Nail them to the wall, like you would any 
individual!
    Pamela Jasins
    Ann Arbor, MI
    GIS Technician for local government



MTC-00019707

From: Wynette Richards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the proposed settlement does not 
address Microsoft's immoral and illegal practices in the past and 
does not prevent the continuance of this behavior in the future.
    Yours truly,
    Wynette Richards
    Technical Staff Member
    Los Alamos National Laboratory
    c/o Computer Science Department
    University of New Mexico
    Albuquerque, NM 87131



MTC-00019708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a United States citizen, and I am submitting a comment in 
response to the proposed settlement in the U.S. vs. Microsoft 
antitrust case in accordance with 15 U.S.C. section 16 (the Tunney 
Act).
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. The proposed settlement fails to either 
appropriately redress Microsoft's past illegal acts or prevent 
Microsoft from repeating or continuing such acts in the future. The 
majority of the restrictions placed on Microsoft's conduct by 
Section III, ``Prohibited Conduct,'' are in fact no more 
restrictive than practices Microsoft has voluntarily adopted 
recently in response to this case or to public outcry, and are 
certainly no stronger than one would ordinarily expect a law-abiding 
company to obey. For example, paragraph III.A.2 of the proposed 
settlement requires Microsoft to not retaliate against an OEM for 
``shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating 
System''; yet this is behavior expected from any company in a 
monopoly position, and in fact required by antitrust law-so 
why is such a clause stated in the proposed settlement?
    Furthermore, the proposed settlement allows Microsoft 
extraordinary latitude in its implementation. For example, section 
VI subsection U, which defines ``Windows Operating System 
Product'', states that ``[t]he software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' Microsoft could-and 
its past actions suggest that it likely would-use this clause 
to arbitrarily declare certain software to be part of or not be part 
of a particular Windows product, to its own benefit; and even if 
claims of improper behavior were raised, they would only start 
another long round of litigation, and the proposed settlement could 
well expire before the claims were finally resolved. Another section 
which merits concerns is section III subsection J, which allows 
Microsoft to (1) avoid disclosure of any information it arbitrarily 
claims ``would compromise the security of . . . encryption or 
authentication systems'' and (2) effectively avoid disclosure 
of -any- information on such systems to individual 
researchers or other groups which do not meet Microsoft's 
``standards . . . for certifying the authenticity and viability 
of [their] business[es]''. Especially with respect to (1), 
Microsoft could easily claim that any information it does not want 
to release would ``compromise the security'' of such 
systems, and third parties would have no way to verify the truth of 
the claim because they would not have access to the information.
    Most importantly, however, I am appalled at the lack of any 
punitive action in the settlement. One of the prime tenets of any 
judicial system, or indeed any system with rules, is that a 
violation of the rules (laws) results in punishment: a punitive 
action, above and beyond a simple requirement to obey the rules in 
the future, which costs the transgressor more than any benefit they 
may have gained from their violations. In the system of rules which 
is United States law, such punishment may take the form of monetary 
fines, imprisonment, or other penalties; however, the proposed 
settlement inexplicably fails to include any penalties or even 
restraints on conduct other than requiring Microsoft to obey the 
law-which it should be doing in the first place! At most, the 
imposition of a Technical Committee and Microsoft Internal 
Compliance Officer could be considered ``penalties'' in 
the sense that law-abiding companies are not subject to such 
oversight, but as the remainder of the settlement does not impose 
any additional penalties, this could hardly be considered 
``punishment'' in the ordinary sense. Since Microsoft has 
already been found to have broken the law, any final judgement in 
this case must include some form of actual punishment greater in 
degree than Microsoft's gains from its illegal activities, whether 
that punishment be fines, loss of intellectual property (for 
example, requiring Microsoft to place the source code to its Windows 
operating system or other products in the public domain), or some 
other action. The lack of such a punishment should by itself be 
sufficient reason to reject the proposed settlement.
    While an amicable settlement between both parties is a desirable 
resolution to any court case, the simple fact that a settlement was 
reached should not -ipso-facto- overrule concerns 
about the efficacy of that settlement, particularly in a case such 
as this which concerns the entire American people. The proposed 
settlement is completely ineffective at either providing redress for 
Microsoft's past illegal acts or preventing a repetition of such 
acts in the future, and on those grounds I believe it should be 
rejected by the Court.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew M. Church



MTC-00019709

From: paul mckinnie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement made with the 9 states does not go 
far enough to make microsoft stop the way they do business. 
JSomething stronger needs to be done to insure consumers do not get 
ripped off when buying a new operating system.
    Thank you for the chance to speak up on this matter.



MTC-00019710

From: Pete Aven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Will this even be read? Does The Tunney Act matter anymore? Each 
day that this case lingers on, I lose more and more faith in my 
government. I work hard, and I'm a contributing member in my 
community. I'm a good citizen. I have no words, other than please do 
the right thing. Please punish Microsoft. They've hurt many people 
over the years. They've hurt a lot of companies that had great 
technological advances to share with us. But we'll never see what 
those companies could've offered, and we'll never know what could've 
been. Who knows what great technological advancement could've helped 
others and contributed to our great nation. Not us. Microsoft 
crushed anyone who got in their way. Oh well, I know this does no 
good. Thanks for letting me vent. Enjoy all the money that microsoft 
is giving ya while you can. The lawyers, judges, press; everyone is 
getting something from them except the people they hurt. Please note 
that all great empires do eventually come to an end.
    Thanks,
    Pete Aven
    510-409-2656
    (I realize you probably don't care, but in case you do, I just 
thought my full name and a phone number makes me seem more real. 
Your probably getting all sorts of complaints from 
[email protected] and all. Good luck sorting through 
this drama. How much are you getting paid? Remember to thank 
microsoft at the end of the day. Without the case you wouldn't have 
to read this...

[[Page 26765]]



MTC-00019711

From: Michael P. Conlon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:12pm
Subject: Opposition to proposed settlement
    Sirs/Madams:
    I wish to add my personal objection to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. Please note that, while I am a 
professor of computer science at Slippery Rock University of 
Pennsylvania, I speak for only myself.
    I hold a Ph.D. degree in computer engineering. I started 
activity in the computing field before there was a Microsoft. I have 
been involved in the personal computer field since the time when 
Microsoft itself started, when the only personal computers were ones 
you had to build yourself. I have seen Microsoft's hegemony grow, 
and I have seen several good, innovative companies crushed under 
Microsoft's monopoly.
    I also have been active on the Internet since 1985, well before 
Microsoft discovered it. I have seen it continually grow, and with 
it I have seen the growth of the institutions and individuals who 
have used it. Unlike Microsoft and the software and protocols it has 
promoted, the protocols of the Internet are open and public, and 
this openness has been the key to its success. I am particularly 
concerned that an unpunished, unleashed Microsoft might be able to 
``proprietize'' the Internet, destroying the wonderful 
engine of creative economic, educational, civic, and entertainment 
activity that it is. The basic problem I see with the proposed 
settlement is that it fixes few of the real problems. It does not 
punish Microsoft for the evil they have done. It does not create a 
competitive market for operating systems. It does not create a 
competitive market for office applications. It allows for Microsoft 
to hide virtually any protocol from public knowledge on the basis of 
``security.'' (Any real security expert will tell you that 
the effectiveness of a security scheme must reside, not in the 
secrecy of the method, but in its effectiveness, so allowing 
Microsoft to keep these kinds of things secret will not add 
measurably to the security of Microsoft's systems. It will merely 
make it harder for others to compete.) It attempts to give some 
rights to specifications of network protocols to commercial 
enterprises, but fails to give the same rights to the public, and 
particularly to the people who are developing software out of love, 
e.g., the people developing the Linux operating system and other 
``open source'' projects.
    Here are some remedies I would suggest: 1) a large fine, (50% of 
their monopoly-gained cash reserves would be appropriate) payable in 
cash, not software, which would serve to further extend the 
monopoly. Give the money to schools and charities. 2) Prohibit 
Microsoft from restricting the installation of MS software on OEM 
computers in any way. Require that consumers be provided with full-
featured installation disks. 3) It is now virtually impossible to 
purchase a computer without paying for a Microsoft operating system. 
This promotes monopoly. Microsoft must be prohibited from engaging 
in contracts with OEM's that encourage this practice. 4) Require 
that all network protocols and file formats, particularly Word's 
.doc format and Excel's .xls format, and Windows Networking 
authentication protocols, be published and submitted to a recognized 
standards body such as ANSI, IEEE, or IETF. 5) Prohibit Microsoft 
from buying other software companies for ten years. 6) In lieu of 
the previous, since some of them might be difficult to enforce, 
break Microsoft into at least three operating systems companies and 
three applications companies, each with rights to the source code 
of, at least, the major products in their area. Minor products 
(e.g., Visio, Flight Simulator) may be parceled out.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Michael P. Conlon, Ph.D.Closed Source Software:
    Computer Science DepartmentYou don't need to clean
    106D Maltby Centerhouse if no one can look
    Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvaniainside!
    Slippery Rock, PA 16057
    (724)738-2143



MTC-00019712

From: phil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea and I do not support it.
    Thank You,
    Phil Pawelcyzk
    Connecticut



MTC-00019713

From: Regolo Belen, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I highly oppose the proposed Microsoft-DOJ settlement. It is my 
right, according to the Tunney Act, to voice my opinion that the 
proposed settlement does a very poor job to the consumers, as well 
as businesses, of the American economy. If you don't see this 
injustice.....HOW ARE YOU A TRUE ATTORNEY?!?
    Regolo Belen, Jr.
    [email protected]
    (917) 225-2164
    ABSTERGO SYSTEMS CORPORATION



MTC-00019714

From: Andrew Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:15pm
Subject: I believe the proposed settlement in the Microsoft vs DOJ 
anti-trust case
    I believe the proposed settlement in the Microsoft vs DOJ anti-
trust case is impotent in the disintegration of Microsoft's 
festering monopoly of the consumer operating system market.
    Specifically, the proposed settlement offers weak measures 
ensuring that Microsoft does not continue to use practices that act 
as a barrier of entry to competitors. Please review these arguments 
for further proofs: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Thank you for listening,
    Andrew Spencer
    A devoted, concerned U.S. citizen and computer user.
    [email protected]
    http://andrew.fallingblue.com



MTC-00019715

From: Billy Faggart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I write to provide you with some commentary as permitted under 
the Tunney Act on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I will keep it 
short. The proposed settlement is totally unacceptable.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of operating an illegal 
monopoly. This has been upheld upon appeal. And yet, the proposed 
settlement does remarkably little to impact the way Microsoft does 
business. And it does even less (zero) in assessing penalties for 
past wrongdoing. The settlement is little more than a ``go and 
sin no more'' response.
    The proposed remedies are inadequate and will not adversely 
impact Microsoft's monopoly. For example, judgment remedies are 
specific to companies in commerce; that is, companies that operate 
for a profit. Ironically, the biggest threat to Microsoft on the PC 
platform today is Linux. Linux is a non-commercial product. As such, 
Linux developers have no rights under the proposed settlement.
    Section III(J)(2) is actually against not-for-profits. 
Specifically, Microsoft need not describe nor license API, 
documentation, or communications protocols affecting authentication 
and authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria 
as a business: ``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, ...'' That Microsoft is able to set 
such criteria is remarkable...and remarkably bad.
    Similarly, Section III(D) speaks to disclosure of the APIs for 
non-Microsoft middleware. The parties to which Microsoft agrees to 
disclose these APIs-APIs which are necessary to allow a 
program to interoperate with Windows-are explicitly commercial 
entities.
    My suggestions:
    1) APIs enabling non-Microsoft programs and operating systems to 
properly interact with the Windows operating system and middleware 
products should be made available to any and all parties that create 
such programs. Microsoft should have no veto power in this.
    2) Microsoft should release the specifications of its 
applications'' file formats. Microsoft should not be able to 
constrain a consumer to using its products in order for that 
consumer to get to his own data. File specifications should be 
public. Microsoft would have to compete on the quality of its 
products (e.g., Word, Excel) rather than on the ability to hide the 
documents behind proprietary file formats.


[[Page 26766]]


    3) Microsoft's tendency to ``embrace and extend'' 
should be forcefully curbed. Microsoft has, many times in the past, 
modified industry standards in order to make proprietary versions 
for its products that, due to Microsoft's monopoly power, end up 
locking out competition. They have done so in computer languages 
such as Java (see ``Microsoft's holy war on Java'' http://
news.com.com/2009-1001-215854.html?legacy=cnet). They 
have done so with open security protocols such as Kerberos (see 
``Kerberos made to heel'' http://zdnet.com.com/
2100-11-502019.html?legacy=zdnn). And they do so with 
internet protocols and HTML extensions.
    As recently as October 2001, Microsoft's web portal, MSN.com, 
went so far as to disallow non-Microsoft browsers such as Opera, 
Mozilla, Amaya, Konqueror, and some version of Netscape from even 
viewing the site. Instead, visitors were greeted with a message that 
recommended that people ``upgrade to Internet Explorer'' 
(see ``MSN.com shuts out non-Microsoft browsers'' http://
news.com.com/2100-1023-274944.html?legacy=cnet).
    Microsoft seeks out promising or threatening technologies, 
incorporates them, and claims to make them better. But 
``better'' ultimately means they only work on the 
Microsoft Windows platform. When we are dealing with standards that 
impact computer-to-computer communication and interaction-most 
notably, the internet, itself-Microsoft must not be allowed to 
redefine and own those standards.
    4) Allow computer buyers to return Windows for a refund. Windows 
is included with nearly every desktop PC sold today, whether a user 
needs or wants it. It should be possible for a person to buy the 
computer but opt out of the operating system. Microsoft should 
institute a rebate mechanism so that a person who needs a new 
computer to run Linux or BSD or other operating system is not forced 
to pay a ``Microsoft tax.'' And, in these days of low 
computer prices, the contribution of this tax to the total cost of 
the system is not insignificant. An alternative would be to say that 
manufacturers should offer PCs without operating systems; however, 
Microsoft is the party under the jurisdiction of the court.
    5) Assess a cash penalty on Microsoft in correct proportion to 
the damages that resulted out of its illegal monopoly. Microsoft has 
benefited handsomely from its wrongdoing. The proposed settlement 
does not speak to this at all. The court should.
    Thank you for my opportunity to comment.
    Billy E. Faggart, Jr., Ph.D.
    5505 10th St. N.
    Arlington, VA 22205



MTC-00019716

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I regard the Microsoft Corporation to be the single greatest 
threat to the future of personal computing and to the freedom to use 
the Internet as one sees fit. In my opinion, Microsoft deliberately 
engineers their software to be incompatible with existing and 
proposed standards in order to create and maintain a 
``Microsoft world'', in which one is forced to use 
Microsoft products and methodologies when working with computers. If 
one seeks alternatives, one finds few of them because companies are 
unwilling to invest in providing support for alternatives, given 
Microsoft's current domination of the PC OS (operating system) 
market.
    The newspapers reported some time ago the demand that Microsoft 
be required to support alternative platforms as part of the separate 
settlement with the nine states that did not settle along with the 
government. I agree with this requirement-I think every piece 
of application software provided by Microsoft should be made 
available to run on the Unix platform as well. This is to include 
Apple's OS X operating system, Linux and FreeBSD, if not also Sun's 
Solaris, HP's HP/UX and others. Microsoft perceives Linux as the 
single largest threat to its absolute domination of the PC market, 
as well it should, inasmuch as Linux is more stable and secure than 
Microsoft Windows.
    Microsoft wants absolutely everyone to use its products to do 
useful work. Microsoft, however, is not competant to produce 
adequate-quality software for use on the Internet. Consider the 
issue of computer viruses. Recall the ``Melissa'' virus 
and numbers of other viruses that have arrived on the Internet as of 
late. For ``Melissa'' I recall a figure of $11 billion in 
damages due to lost productivity and data worldwide. The fact is 
that Microsoft allowed this to occur due to negligence-Unix 
systems were not affected, and in fact Unix systems are not subject 
to ``viruses'' as people commonly think of 
them-these viruses are targeted at security holes and design 
flaws in the Microsoft operating systems and application software. 
Microsoft never offered any compensation for these losses, never 
apologized, and never admitted that encouraging people to continue 
to use their software puts people at risk for further such damage. 
The entire ``antivirus'' software industry was developed 
around the susceptibility of Microsoft software to problems of this 
kind. I think if any entity can force people to use its products and 
methods, it is equally responsible to insure that people not only 
are not harmed, but are actively benefitted through that use.
    Microsoft's Public Relations strategy appears to depend on the 
perception many people have that there is no viable alternative to 
Microsoft software, and that only Microsoft knows how to produce 
software to perform useful work on computers. I believe it has been 
thoroughly established in the concluded antitrust case that 
Microsoft expends a great deal of attention and effort in ensuring 
that people are NOT afforded alternatives-competitors are 
bought out or threatened with lethal market tactics if they try to 
proceed independently from Microsoft. It is Microsoft's stated goal 
to replace Unix with Windows wherever possible, as quickly as 
possible, despite the fact that the Unix operating system is 
superior in every respect. Unix made the Internet possible in the 
first place; Microsoft was years late in recognizing the value of 
the Internet and was years late in providing a means for people to 
use their computers to access it. Microsoft is willing to work to 
destroy a work of great and recognized value because it is a threat 
to Microsoft's ``profits'', wherein presumably Microsoft 
was always entitled to make money from anyone's use of a PC for any 
reason and these ``other'' systems are 
``interfering'' with that goal and the public at large is 
expected to acquiesce to Microsoft's self-assumed prerogatives even 
if the public is then deprived of access to superior products. I 
have heard, though I find it difficult to believe, that Microsoft 
announced intentions to ``modify TCP/IP to No one man or 
corporation is entitled to arrogate unto itself the power and 
authority to dictate standards and practices in the personal 
computing or Internet arenas. This is, however, Microsoft's goal.
    The Microsoft Corporation could completely and totally vanish 
tomorrow, and while there would certainly be disruptions in the PC 
and software industries, in fact nothing much would change and 
dozens of companies would have replacement products in the market 
within six months. In fact, development monies would be freed up and 
people could enter the market to produce non-Microsoft-based 
software for profit without fear of being crushed by a large 
malevolent corporation which operates as if it is the only valid 
player in the software market.
    Microsoft's claims that their design requires the bundling of 
portions of application package features into the operating system 
are false. (e.g. the claim that Internet Explorer is an integral 
portion of the operating system and cannot be removed.) I completed 
coursework for a Master's degree in Computer Science at Rensselaer 
Polytechnic Institute in 1980. Microsoft's claims are justified only 
to the extent that they have deliberately engineered their operating 
systems to support those claims. A graduate student who produced 
operating system designs similar to Microsoft's would have failed 
their courses in 1980 and therever after. The poor security and 
performance of Microsoft's operating systems are direct consequences 
of their poor design ``methodologies'', if Microsoft even 
thinks in such terms.
    I have no doubt that if Linux were something Microsoft could 
``buy'', it would buy it to put it out of business, or it 
would be stripped and hobbled and be sold for hundreds of dollars, 
in contrast to Linux's open-source origins.
    I think AOL Time Warner has done an awful job of maintaining 
Netscape versus Internet Explorer-AOL could have done much 
more with Netscape and should have. But in my job as the operator of 
a computer store and ISP since 1995, I have witnessed the rise of 
Netscape and watched it replaced by Internet Explorer step-by-step 
in exactly the same fashion as other common software-word 
processors (Word), spreadsheets (Excel), presentation software 
(Powerpoint) who can name competing products in these areas? Fewer 
and fewer people as time goes by. I am convinced that Microsoft 
engineers their websites to cause problems for non-Microsoft 
browers, or 


[[Page 26767]]


perhaps specifically for Netscape. I try to access a 
Microsoft or Microsoft-driven website with the Netscape browser only 
to have the access fail on the first attempt but SUCCEED on the next 
attempt. How many people would DISbelieve the first failure and try 
again? How many people would blame the Netscape browser for the 
problem and switch to Internet Explorer instead?
    The HTTP protocol is an international standard produced by a 
standards body. Yet I encounter numbers of websites driven by 
Microsoft software that CAN ONLY BE ACCESSED USING INTERNET EXPLORER 
because site designers are using Microsoft ``standard 
features'' that are not ``standards'' at all, but 
proprietary extensions introduced by Microsoft explicitly to raise 
barriers to the use of non-Microsoft products. Microsoft encourages 
people to use Microsoft ``methodologies'' without warning 
people that to do so makes their work ususable by users of non-
Microsoft products. Complaints to companies about their implicit 
forcing of the use of the Internet Explorer browser often go ignored 
on the notion that ``everybody uses Internet Explorer'' 
(so why should we rewrite our website to suit an open international 
STANDARD when it is so easy to use what Microsoft gives us to use to 
write our website?)
    Any corporation so damaging of whole industries and so bent on 
domination and control should be punished and put in its place. If 
the order to split the company into an operating systems company and 
an applications software company had gone through, presumably the 
applications company would begin producing software for Linux and 
FreeBSD, and the operating systems company would go out of business 
in several years as the alternatives were seen to be superior, as 
they are. Nobody would want to support an operating system (Windows) 
that is so poorly designed and which crashes and hangs and behaves 
so oddly and poorly and which is as expensive to maintain as 
Windows. Nobody would, but they are forced to do so as things stand 
now.
    If we can't have that, I do certainly agree that Microsoft 
should be required to make its application software available to run 
on Linux and FreeBSD, and I agree that the Internet Explorer 
application should be disintegrated from Windows and spun off into a 
separate company. Microsoft should be forced to compete on a level 
playing field and to earn its money honestly. No offers of cash 
grants or ``free software to schools'' should be accepted 
whatsoever- the Microsoft corporation must be structurally 
modified as much as possible to prevent it from further abusing its 
current dominance in the industry. Microsoft should not be allowed 
to bundle applications with its operating system-the 
applications should be offered for sale on the open market, just as 
all Microsoft's competitors have to do with their products.
    It's worth noting, in closing, that Judge Jackson wrote as part 
of his opinion that Microsoft was charging TWICE as much for its 
operating system software as was warranted. No wonder Microsoft can 
afford to bundle ``free'' software with the OS-it 
was already paid for by the consumer without their consent! And we 
have of course never heard that Microsoft was considering rebates or 
refunds based on its overcharges.
    No judgement could be too harsh for Microsoft. Tens of millions 
of virus-infected PCs and millions of hours and dollars of wasted 
time and lost productivity testify to that. I will not think the 
world is safe for my industry as long as Microsoft can unilaterally 
engineer any part of it. I would as soon see Microsoft out of 
business entirely, but short of that it should be reduced to what it 
does reasonably well writing office software, and that's all. Its 
highly-paid staff of intelligent software professionals should be 
returned to the labor pool to start doing something truly useful 
with open-source technologies.
    [email protected]
    Eric Dynamic
    CTO, UC Telecommuncations Company
    Berkeley, CA
    510.649.6088
    510.540.5579 fax



MTC-00019717

From: Marcus Castro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Considering the vast amounts of money that was made by Microsoft 
while using these illegal tactics, I believe that the settlement 
offer is unreasonable. It should be much higher than the proposed 
amount, perhaps even 10 times that amount, and a good portion of it 
should go back to those whom Microsoft hurt with these tactics, 
namely the consumers.
    Marcus Castro
    4847 Hopyard Rd #4-183
    Pleasanton, CA 94588
    [email protected]



MTC-00019718

From: Lynn Dobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft provides no credible 
relief from Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. The newest 
release of the Windows operating system violates the terms of 
earlier agreements with the Department of Justice, also.
    Microsoft and its allies have damaged and defeated any credible 
attempt at competition in the desktop operating system market. 
Through other unfair practices progress and growth of the computer 
software industry has been severely stunted with significant 
negative effects on the US economy. Microsoft has become too 
powerful and is clearly too unscrupulous to be rendered harmless as 
long as it stays a single company. Not only would a broken up 
Microsoft relieve the problem to our industry, it would probably 
reward Microsoft stockholders with increased value. It could be a 
win-win. The current proposed settlement is at best win-lose- 
a win for Bill Gates and a loss to the American people whose rights 
are entrusted to the care of the US Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Lynn B. Dobbs
    4577 Park Blvd. Apt 4
    San Diego, CA 92116



MTC-00019719

From: Ramona Matthews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    Ramona Matthews



MTC-00019720

From: Trent Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that Microsoft has put way too much 
control into their new Operating system windows XP. First, many of 
the multimedia utilities like Media player and internet explorer 
cannot be uninstalled by the user if they wish to use another 
program. Furthermore, MS bugs customers to open up a passport 
account numerous times when installing the OS that the individual 
almost feels like they have to sign up. Microsoft can clearly be 
shown that they are using their unfair monopoly position to further 
move into other software applications. Without action against 
Microsoft, we will have even less software companies in other areas 
other then Operating systems. Our choices for good performing 
software will go down and we will be forced to pay more for software 
that is already being shown to have many security flaws. Way back 
when Bill Gates said that Microsoft would never charge for internet 
explorer and then proceeded to build it into the operating system 
with no uninstall, it became very apparent that MS had become a 
abusive monopoly. It can be also pointed out that Microsoft is 
guilty of pressuring oem vendors to always bundle MS operating 
systems with new computers or face higher prices etc...
    Currently, AOL is suing MS for what they did to Netscape. I 
strongly agree that Netscape never got justice for what happened. I 
do support AOL in its fight for the abuses against Netscape and I 
feel that at the very least, every MS operating system should have a 
complete uninstall for internet explorer.
    Further, I feel that IE should not even be installed by default 
and that Netscape should also be bundled with windows as part of a 
punishment for the settlement against Microsoft.
    It is not that I am against monopolies. AT&T the old Ma Bell 
was a good monopoly and I feel that current phone companies provide 
us with service far less then the old Ma Bell. However, it was a 
monopoly and had to be broken up. Ma bell was not abusive. Microsoft 
is abusive with its powers. They did not learn anything from the 
lawsuits against them. They are more arrogant then ever and show no 
respect for the courts or justice. It is obvious that Mr. Gates and 
MS feel they can beat anybody or any court with their lawyers and 
money. Remember, in the original case MS even was shown to lie to 
try to protect their monopoly position so there really needs to be 
strong actions taken. Already the lack of 


[[Page 26768]]


competition is bringing us weak products with poor security. MS 
products are the most memory intensive and processor hungry programs 
with numerous security holes. Fair competition would no doubt bring 
us better, faster and more secure programs. I support fully any 
action against Microsoft's unfair monopoly position to allow fair 
competition to generate better software for everyone to enjoy. Thank 
you for reading this comment..
    Trent Larson
    [email protected]



MTC-00019721

From: Sarah L. E. Unsicker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed antitrust settlement against 
Microsoft. I believe the proposed settlement will allow Microsoft to 
continue practices which have been proven anticompetitive, and 
likely give them an even stronger hold on the desktop PC software 
market. This is unfair for competition. More than that, it is unfair 
for consumers who are left with no reasonable choice but to purchase 
Microsoft products. Please modify this settlement in a way that will 
benefit consumers more than it will benefit Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Sarah Unsicker
    [email protected]
    5422 Haymeadow #3A
    Peoria, IL 61615



MTC-00019722

From: Joshua Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I thought it would be appropriate for me to comment on the 
Microsoft Settlement that has been proposed. I disagree on many 
points with the Settlement. I have seen many holes pointed out in 
it, and understand what harm Microsoft has done to competition in 
many software products, from Operating Systems to Internet browsers 
to media players.
    I am a computer science student (Junior) at Michigan State 
University. I understand many of the technical details (at least on 
the surface), and I have used many of Microsoft's competitors'' 
products, including Netscape (6.2 & Mozilla 9.x), Winamp, 
RealPlayer, DivX's ``the Playa'', and even the Linux 
operating system.
    I understand that Microsoft uses many secret API's, and that the 
PFJ doesn't force Microsoft to publish these API's, other than the 
ones that allow interaction between the Microsoft Windows OS and 
it's ``middleware''. It would be more appropriate to 
ensure that Microsoft shared all of the API's, including the ones 
that allowed interaction between Windows and it's non-middleware 
products. I understand how hard it is to make a program like WINE 
work, an emulator designed to run Windows programs in Linux, and it 
would be much easier if all of the Windows API's were published.
    Microsoft Middleware must be allowed to be replaced under any 
installation of a Microsoft Windows product. I dont'' like the 
idea of a great program being lost on the wayside because companies 
are punished for including it alongside microsoft products. I know 
that Microsoft purposely bundles its Internet browser with its 
operating system so that it could gain a monopoly in the browser 
market. It is not hard to imagine a future where Microsoft media 
player, instant messenger, mail program, and office software are the 
default standard, because they come pre-packaged, while other, 
better, more secure alternatives waste and fail because they are 
unable to compete with the defaults forced on companies by MS. I 
know quite a few people who know no other web browser, mail program, 
or office suite but Microsoft's.
    That isn't competition, that is domination, monopoly, and 
suffocation. Are there better mail programs, that could be included 
by OEM's? Given the tremendous growth in mailing viruses, I think 
so. Are there better web browsers? Perhaps, but it may only be a 
matter of personal preference. Better office suites? Again, it may 
only be preference, but by price/usefulness there are many superior 
competitors that are unpopular merely because they are pushed away 
by microsoft, or because Microsoft's programs are the default 
standard. Is Office a middleware product? The answer is yes, many 
programs run on top of Outlook, Word, and Access.
    There are too many more problems to list here. A rewrite is in 
order, in my opinion, and a miscarriage of justice is possible. The 
PFJ is not even as strong at definitions as the Finding of Fact, the 
DOJ seems to have lessened its punishment of Microsoft, perhaps 
because of trying economic times. I say, do the right thing, punish 
the lawbreaker, and create competition. Good things might happen.
    Joshua Smith



MTC-00019723

From: Steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Hi
    I wish this case to be settled fair. You see Microsoft can see 
on your hardrive and can tell what programs you have,so they can 
tell what programs still have part of the market under Windows and 
that is bad. They can put man power to target them. I could go on 
for hours but your job is stop letting them looking on peoples 
hardrive. Let third party companys have a chance to put their 
product out there. AOL needs to be given even footing with 
Microsoft. Windows must be put basically in to a position not to be 
able to read the programs installed on your computer. Xp could be 
the end of lots of companies if it isn't limited. I hope Microsoft 
practices will be stoped or we will be paying large prices for 
operating systems and companies like SUN , AOL and other will fade 
away. Thank you for your time.
    Steven Gorkowski



MTC-00019724

From: Chick Tower
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not think the ``Microsoft settlement'' goes far 
enough to prevent Microsoft from continuing and extending its 
monopolistic practices. Too much is left up to Microsoft's 
discretion, interpretation, and definition. The settlement needs to 
more specifically and rigorously define what it covers. The law 
generally does not allow convicted bank robbers to define what is a 
bank, or convicted rapists to define what constitutes rape; why 
should Microsoft, a convicted monopolistic company, be allowed to 
act in certain ways based upon definitions that the settlement says 
they alone may create, such as what constitutes Microsoft middleware 
or what is part of the Microsoft Windows operating system? What this 
settlement basically says is ``Microsoft is prohibited from 
acting in ways that Microsoft deems monopolistic and unfair.'' 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the company convicted because of 
actions it claimed were NOT monopolistic and unfair? In my opinion, 
this settlement gives Microsoft carte blanche to continue business 
as usual, and therefore does not serve the cause of justice.
    Charles Tower q



MTC-00019725

From: Matt Langford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to state the I think the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft is a bad thing. It's not effective as a punishment, 
in my opinion, because it will extend their ability to abuse it's 
already too great monopoly power.
    Matt Langford



MTC-00019726

From: Fred Hamilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Fir the record, I'm extremely disappointed with the Microsoft 
settlement. I feel like the DOJ has caved in, for whatever reasons, 
to a monopolist. Microsoft's unchallenged strength and domination of 
computing has caused the following business and societal ills:
    Loss of Innovation: Innovative companies with products far 
superior to Microsoft's have been driven out of business by 
Microsoft's deep pockets and uncompetitive practices. For example, 
Be. The BeOS was better in almost every way to Windows, but 
Microsoft used their clout to prevent any PC manufacturer from even 
offering it as an OPTION. Needless to say, Netscape is a shell of 
its former self because Microsoft could spend millions (or billions) 
developing Internet Explorer and giving it away until Netscape lost.
    Privatization of Open Standards: Microsoft is trying to co-opt 
the internet by not being compatible with open standards (HTML, 
SHTML, Java, etc.), and using its enormous clout to force people to 
move to Microsoft-flavored versions of these standards. Web sites 
must support the Microsoft-flavored versions, since Microsoft's 
Internet explorer is used by something like 90% of the Internet. 
This means anyone trying to compete with Microsoft in web browsing 
or 


[[Page 26769]]


similar tools is chasing a moving target. Since NO COMPANY ON 
EARTH has enough money to chase Microsoft, the competition dies or 
never starts in the first place. The internet is based on open 
standards- allowing Microsoft to continue to do this means 
giving them almost complete control over the most important 
communication and data transfer technology in history. Talk about 
monopolies...
    Security Vulnerabilites: I don't have the exact number, but 
apparently computer viruses have cost businesses around the world 
(but primarily in the US) BILLIONS of dollars. Now, if you look at 
the big viruses that have made the news and cost the most money, 
they were all spread by Microsoft products! Ah, but if Microsoft has 
90% market share, that's too be expected, right? Perhaps Microsoft 
can be forgiven for the first few, but Microsoft has consistently 
NOT fixed or changed code in Microsoft Outlook and Internet Explorer 
and IIS that is easily exploited by any hacker with a mind to.
    There are a lot of other issues, but these are the three big 
ones and I don't want to make a career out of writing this email. 
But to summarize: You are letting a monopolist responsible for 
uncompetitively and illegally killing competition, stifling 
innovation, co-opting the most important technology on Earth, and 
being (mostly) directly responsible for BILLIONS of dollars lost due 
to viruses and security attacks, off the hook with a little slap on 
the cheek.
    Even a very pro-business administration such as yours should be 
able to see the danger of letting this monster grow unchecked. 
Please reconsider how you are handling this case.
    Best regards,
    Fred
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019727

From: jesse montrose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opposition to the Microsoft 
Settlement. As a computer professional, I've watched Microsoft's 
progress over the years, with increasing dismay. Although I consider 
myself a Libertarian, and feel some concern about government 
intervention, I lament the loss of competition, sanity, and life to 
my chosen industry.



MTC-00019728

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the currently ``Proposed Final Judgment in 
United States v. Microsoft'' is inadequate to end Microsoft's 
abusive monopoly on desktop computing. I am AGAINST it.
    When I was a young boy I was taught that the US justice system 
was fair and sure. If you were caught doing something wrong, you 
could expect to be punished. Well, Microsoft has done something 
wrong, and they continue to do so. This is in the courts own finding 
of facts. They have created a situation where competition is bought 
up or ruthlessly destroyed. The settlement proposed allows many 
exclusionary practices, and thus the monopoly, to continue.
    Also, I am deeply concerned that if this monopoly is allowed to 
continue that America's security is at risk. This is because there 
is only one target now on the desktop, Microsoft. And they have 
little incentive to improve their products (witness the many viruses 
successfully designed and deployed against Microsoft products).
    I have 30 years of experience as an engineer, 20 of these are in 
software engineering. I routinely use Linux and Windows (NT, 98, 95) 
on desktop computers. Linux and it's applications are stable, and 
excellent. Windows and its applications fail on a regular basis. 
Something is badly out of balance if software that is free ($0 
acquisition cost) and of far better quality can't achieve widespread 
distribution (compete in the industry).
    The root of Microsoft's monopoly is their ability to hold your 
data hostage via proprietary formats. These formats are changed as 
new software versions are brought out in ways which (greatly) 
encourage upgrading to the latest Microsoft software.
    I would end the monopoly by liberating the world's data. Require 
that Microsoft publish their file formats, and live by them. This 
will allow other companies, and the free software world, to compete 
with Microsoft by creating more reliable and secure software which 
can read and write so called ``standard'' Microsoft 
formats.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter...



MTC-00019729

From: Ralph Heymann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft attack by AOL
    As an investor in AOL I can only say that I am utterly disgusted 
with AOL/Netscape concerning this obscene lawuit. If the AOL people 
have nothing better to do with their management time, then I see not 
much of a future for them.
    As you must know the Microsoft Explorer software is so much 
superior to the abortions dreamed up by Netscape that one would not 
touch the Netscape product with a ten foot pole. Procomp should be 
equally ashamed.
    Ralph Heymann
    Chapel Hill NC



MTC-00019730

From: Amber Dawn Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This proposal is a Bad idea, as in: I personally as an american 
citizen oppose this settlement and hereby declare that it is 
unAmerican!
    Thank you.
    Amber Bennett



MTC-00019731

From: Anthony Buhler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear that Microsoft has done significant damage to the 
competitive landscape of the software industry.
    It is my belief that if other software companies had not been 
crushed by Microsoft that we would have seen more innovative 
software, more stable software, and more secure software. But if 
there is no competition, why make something better?
    Anthony Buhler



MTC-00019732

From: Ellis (038) Ruth Hillinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is 
inadequate and urge that a more comprehensive remedy be implemented.
    Thank you.
    Ellis Hillinger
    Seattle Washington



MTC-00019733

From: Lawrence Howards, M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement and AOL
    To Whom it May Concern: The AOL suit seems to be a repeat of the 
original and dismissed browser suit against Microsoft. Moreover, 
years ago, I changed to the Microsoft browser because it was better, 
not because it was free. I had both of them for a time.



MTC-00019734

From: (u)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my oppposition to the proposted Microsoft 
settlement. The proposed settlement does not penalize Microsoft for 
its history of *punishing* computer manufacturers for selling PCs 
containing software or Operating Systems made by competitors of 
Microsoft. Such actions by Microsoft are the antithesis of free 
trade. The proposed settlement also does not prevent Microsoft from 
partaking in this type of cutthroat behavior in the future. It also 
does not prevent Microsoft from -intentionally- building 
into its applications incompatibilities in order to keep them from 
running on competing operating systems, and intentionally inserting 
incompatibilities into user files created in Microsoft applications 
so that such files cannot be used in applications created by 
competing software companies.
    A. Walter



MTC-00019735

From: James Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:25pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Dear D.O.J.,
    I would like to submit my comments about the Proposed Final 
Judgement. As recommended by the D.O.J., I have read the original 
Complaint (5/18/1998), the Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement (11/06/2001) and the Competitive 


[[Page 26770]]


Impact Statement (11/15/2001). I am unable to believe that the 
remedies in the PFJ will prevent Microsoft from maintaining its 
operating system monopoly. The PFJ appears to me to have no teeth. 
To me, the heart of the issue is Microsoft's ability to determine 
de-facto standards. These standards include word processing and 
spreadsheet file formats, which Microsoft, under the PFJ, retains 
the ability to manipulate in secrecy in order to block competition. 
These standards also include the interfaces used by Microsoft 
products such as Word and Excel to carry out their functions. As 
shown in the courts proceedings, Microsoft has repeatedly and 
secretly changed these APIs in order to 
disable or cause malfunctions in competing software. The PFJ does 
require that Microsoft make some APIs public, but the definition of 
API in the PFJ is so limited that there can be no expectation that 
Microsoft will not continue to cripple competitors using this dirty 
trick.
    I think that it's unfortunate that patents covering the Windows 
API are allowed to remain undocumented. This prevents potential 
competitors from implementing products which are compatible with the 
de-facto standard PC operating system API without risking patent 
infringement. The patents are especially a problem because it is 
well documented that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued 
many software patents without adequately determining the novelty of 
the proposed invention. Please read ``Intellectual 
Improprieties'' in Scientific American magazine's February 2002 
issue, p. 34 for more information about this problem.
    Besides the issue of standards, there is the question of 
Microsoft's practice of using OEM licensing agreements to suppress 
competition. This section of the PFJ is apparently very weak by 
design. It contains language that actually encourages Microsoft to 
increase its market share by allowing the company, which is guilty 
of engaging in illegal practices to suppress competition, to go 
ahead and dictate different licensing terms to smaller 
OEMs-precisely the OEMs who are most likely to encourage 
competition with Microsoft (Section III.B), and by permitting 
Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM who ships computers 
containing no Microsoft operating system (Section III.A.2). 
Considering these problems, I feel that the the Proposed Final 
Judgement as written will have very little effect on Microsoft and I 
am certain that significant anticompetitive practices will continue 
at the company. The Proposed Final Judgement is not in the public 
interest, and it should not be adopted without addressing these 
issues. As a personal amendment, I am a software developer. I 
started developing software in 1982 at the age of 13. I worked in 
computer stores for four years, from 1984 to 1987, and I have been a 
professional software developer since 1988 starting as a student in 
college where I worked for the University of Chicago's Graduate 
School of Business. The computer industry in the 1980s was a 
wonderful market, full of innovation. Spreadsheets, word processors, 
desktop publishing programs, games, and operating systems all 
enjoyed significant competition and the consumer benefited from a 
bounty of choice and variety. Standards such as SGML (the basis of 
HTML), ANSI C, and POSIX were refined and adopted and the end user 
benefited from consistent implementation of these standards. 
Products improved in functionality and reliability and prices were 
kept low by market forces.
    I enjoyed using Microsoft products, purchasing Multiplan, Word, 
and MS-BASIC for the Macintosh. The first sign of trouble that I 
noticed was when Apple was developing a really good BASIC 
development environment for the Mac, called MacBasic, in 1985. 
Preview versions of this software were available and it was 
obviously much better than the MS-BASIC product. Apple had poured a 
lot of resources into MacBasic and was poised to release the product 
when Microsoft stepped in. This is the first application of 
Microsoft's famous and frequently used ``Apple- submit or 
we will no longer make products which run on the Macintosh'' 
tactic that I know of. Apple submitted and sold MacBasic to 
Microsoft for $1. MacBasic was buried and Microsoft continued to 
sell its inferior product, without updating it or addressing its 
limitations at all for years.
    Finally, even MS-BASIC disappeared from the market and consumers 
were left without a useful BASIC programming environment on the 
Macintosh. There are so many stories like this that I know that 
Microsoft has significantly and intentionally damaged the personal 
computer market. Microsoft continues to do so today by shipping 
broken products to so many people that massive security flaws and 
unstable systems are now considered the norm by many. Programmers 
know that this perception is dangerous and untrue. Better practices 
and better operating systems have existed since the 1970s, but they 
are unable to gain a foothold in the PC market because Microsoft 
uses unfair practices to maintain the Microsoft monopoly on that 
market. The other reason I feel strongly about this issue is that it 
is clear to anyone who has been involved with the industry since the 
early eighties that the software market has collapsed into an 
uninteresting, low quality blob. Strong companies shipping strong 
products, such as Word Perfect, Harvard Graphics, Borland, Netscape, 
Corel, Digital, Ashton-Tate, Lotus, Eudora, and IBM have all 
attempted to sell products which compete with Microsoft applications 
and they all now lie strewn in the dust, crushed by monopoly power.
    Apple, Sun, and free software are the only hope I have today for 
freedom of choice in desktop computing. I feel that Microsoft will 
eventually fall, because end users still have freedom of choice and 
free software will replace Microsoft products on the desktop. This 
may take decades to accomplish and many millions of computer users 
will be deprived of choice until that day.
    I believe that the PFJ as written will not accelerate this 
process, nor will it significantly improve the situation for 
commercial competition to Microsoft. As a computer professional and 
as a citizen of the United States, I urge the D.O.J. NOT to adopt 
the proposed final judgement without amendment.
    Thank you,
    James E. Powell
    President, Silver Future Software, Inc.
    3445 S. Downing #307
    Englewood, CO 80110
    http://silver-future.com



MTC-00019736

From: J. Kanowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'll try to keep this brief. As an end user and small-office 
administrator, there is little or nothing in the proposed settlement 
that reduces Microsoft's monopoly influence on my daily personal 
computer usage.
    I have never been a fan of Microsoft products, as I feel they 
are without technical merit. I've used Commodore Amigas, IBM's OS/2, 
and the open-source Berkeley Software Distribution-based UNIXes. In 
all cases, Microsoft's sheer popularity has forced me to own and 
operate at least one Windows system, and in the case of the small-
business environment, a network of Windows machines.
    In particular, if I may quote from http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#info.formats `s criticism of the proposal:
    ``5. File Formats Remain Undocumented
    No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see 
``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39).'' As an average 
user, I can say that it is ``impossible'' for a small 
business to migrate away from Microsoft solutions as long as the 
popularity of Windows and Office maintains the proprietary Word 
format as a de-facto document interchange standard. The average end-
user does not have enough familiarity with Office to understand how 
to save a document in an open format, and Microsoft relies on this 
lack of user skill to maintain their dominance in that software 
space. Frankly, the judgement should set a precedent in demanding 
the specifications of proprietary formats such as Word .DOC be 
opened-should a company profit from their ability to obscure 
their data formats to only interoperate with their own products 
[thus forcing adoption], or by providing innovative software with 
the features the market demands?
    Telephone companies used to require rental/purchase of approved 
telephones direct from the company. With that requirement removed, 
other vendors have been free to offer telephones, some with 
innovative features (speed dial buttons, speakerphones, etc). This 
did not unduly restrict the telephone companies, nor did it 
adversely effect the integrity of their networks. Microsoft has a 
``network'' of sorts-users and businesses who have 
been convinced to use their products, and currently, their closed 
standards and anticompetetive practices force users to purchase 
software from them (Office, Windows) when it should be trivial for 
any word processor to read documents produced by another.
    This is the essential difference between the original (1980s) PC 
marketplace and the 



[[Page 26771]]


``digital milennium''-today, 
there are certain standards in place that enable the Internet, and 
these standards should be taken as a given, not unlike the standards 
of the American interstate network.
    Much of the proposal seems to presume that Microsoft is a 
monopoly in personal computing, and rather than attempting remedy 
that would open the operating systems market to competition, focuses 
on ways to make it easier for other businesses to produce and sell 
to the installed Microsoft userbase without undue restriction by 
Microsoft licensing. This in no way assists the consumer who is 
``not'' running a Microsoft system, and has no interest in 
running a Microsoft system, but finds it necessary to conduct 
communications with Microsoft users! I wish I'd taken the time to 
make this a more founded argument, but hopefully it is food for 
thought. Please consider the fate of direct competitors in the OS 
marketplace, and their end-users, in drafting the final settlement. 
Respect that handheld devices, game systems, and other products are 
equally personal computing devices. Allow direct 
competitors-WINE, Lindows, etc-the rights to reverse 
engineer Windows in the same way that Compaq was allowed to reverse-
engineered the IBM PC BIOS to make the x86/MS-DOS/Windows 
world to happen. Don't allow MS to charge licensing fees for systems 
not running Windows, and do not allow them to restrict the sale of 
dual-booting systems (as occurred when MS licensing blocked Windows/
BeOS dual-boot machines from including a bootloader that could allow 
access to the BeOS installation!)
    Again, though I'm restating myself all over the 
place-don't assume that since MS ``has'' attained a 
monopoly, that competition can't occur, and that all remedies must 
focus on making the Windows monopoly more livable for OEMs, 
developers, and users. Consider mechanisms to actually allow for 
increased competition in the entire personal-computing space. 
Setting a precedent for industry-wide open data file formats would 
be one such mechanism, as it would level the playing field and allow 
for a proscribed level of interoperation between competing 
products-necessary, in today's networked ``digital 
milennium'' world.
    Communications protocols should be treated similarly, and 
information should not be restricted on the basis of security 
concerns. A security issue in a file format or protocol is a 
``failure to innovate,'' as a better-designed format/
protocol would not be victim to the problem.
    To whoever's bothered to slog all the way through this, I thank 
you profusely for your consideration!
    Joseph Kanowitz



MTC-00019737

From: Jere Beauchamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am distressed with the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case. They have been judged to be a monopoly and they have 
engaged in behaviors that have significantly damaged other software 
companies by their practices. Anything less than a breakup of this 
monopoly is a serious setback to the entire computing industry.



MTC-00019738

From: Frank Maglio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is not a solution to the adjudicated 
problem. The proposed settlement will not prevent Microsoft from 
repeating the same pattern of monopolistic abuse it was just 
convicted of conducting. A proper solution would be to return the 
Mosaic browser and the fruits of its tree to the public domain from 
which it came.



MTC-00019739

From: Wes Bateman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my opinion on the matter of the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement. I feel strongly that the current proposal is 
ill advised. It does very little to keep Microsoft from continuing 
to use its marketshare to dominate competitors. Further, this 
watered-down remedy damages any relevance that the anti-trust laws 
have.
    Please reconsider acceptance of the currently proposed remedy. 
It is bad for not only the technology industry, but for our country 
as a whole.
    Thank you for your careful deliberation in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Wes Bateman
    P.O. Box 851053
    Richardson, TX 75085-1053



MTC-00019740

From: Louis Vonderscheer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has and is one of the software sector's largest 
predators. Their practices have destroyed many companies that 
produced excellent products, leaving users such as myself with few 
alternatives. I believe that Microsoft should not walk away from 
this case with a slap on the wrist. An example needs to be set that 
robber barons in a new form cannot be tolerated. Thank you for 
allowing me to have even minor input regarding this issue.
    F. Vonderscheer
    Redding/Sacramento
    California



MTC-00019741

From: Eugene Poole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I DON'T AGREE . . .
    Eugene Poole
    [email protected]



MTC-00019742

From: Silver944
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I consider the proposed settlement to be a total abrogation of 
responsibility on the part of the US Government. In the annals of 
anti-trust, the best analog that I can find is that this settlement 
is as if the Government had not only not broken up Standard Oil, but 
had also given them the railroads. It is an open invitation for 
companies in the future to flout the law with the knowledge that 
even if they are finally convicted in a court of law, the remedy 
applied will be weak at worst and more likely totally impotent. 
Microsoft has shown repeated disdain for the rule of law and may be 
expected to not act in an honorable fashion under any remedy. At a 
time in which we are attempting to demonstrate the nature of 
America, I suggest that Honor is value to be preserved not 
discarded.
    The ubiquitous nature of the Windows operating system due to its 
monopoly status has cost both its users and its non-users a 
tremendous amount of time and treasure due to its basic philosophy 
of construction. It is hard to know what the current situation might 
have been if competition had been allow to exist, but I dare say we 
are better off with a number of different operating systems rather 
than a single omnipresent one.
    I suggest that the proposed settlement be discarded and the 
earlier action by he Honorable Judge Jackson be reinstated.
    Regards,
    Dr. William Ledsham Ph.D. MIT ``78
    40 Bemis St.
    Newton, MA 02460-1103



MTC-00019743

From: Rhys Ulerich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. After reviewing the proposal, it is 
my belief that it is insufficient to curtail Microsoft's unethical 
business practices which are hurting the computer industry.
    One particular change I recommend is that Microsoft be required 
to publically release on the Internet full documentation for all of 
it's API's and file formats, such as those used by Microsoft Office. 
This would allow competitors to create software that is compatible 
with Microsoft's.
    Sincerely,
    Rhys Ulerich
    Undergraduate Computer Science Student



MTC-00019744

From: Denny Napier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft will never, of their own accord, practice business in 
a fair, competitive manner. The Microsoft Empire has been built on 
unfair, monopolistic business practices and they must be reigned in 
for the good of free choice for the public and opportunity for 
growth in the computing sector.
    The settlement is not strict enough.
    Denny Napier



MTC-00019745

From: Sean McNally
To: Microsoft ATR


[[Page 26772]]


Date: 1/23/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The only thing microsoft would understand as a penalty , is a 
financial one. the deal their lawyers dreamed up was one that didn't 
really hit them financially, it only means they will lose a billion 
in sales, not actually pay out a billion in cash. it's obscene! 
There is a huge difference!



MTC-00019746

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Microsoft settlement does not address the problem of 
a monopolistic company. Microsoft has a huge illegal monopoly, and 
the punishment/solution handed out by the US Government should be 
correspondingly drastic. Microsoft should be broken into at least 3 
companies:
-operating systems
-application software
-networks
    Bell Telephone was broken up, and so should Microsoft be. Look 
at the explosion of new products and services and the reductions in 
price which resulted from the Bell breakup. The same things would 
happen from a true Microsoft breakup.
    PLEASE DO NOT LET THEM BUY THEIR WAY OUT OF THIS.
    Thank you.
    David Hershberger
    1235 Bellerock St.
    Pittsburgh, PA 15217



MTC-00019747

From: Ari'' email
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not feel as a citizen of the United States that the full 
scope of this compromise has been disseminated to the people who it 
affects the most. Please do not allow politics to determine the 
future course of technological advance in the US. Do to MSFT what 
was done to the sugar companies and the oil companies and steel. 
Destroy the anti-competitive force that is MSFT and we will once 
again be the vanguard of technological break through's not patches 
and security holes.
    Thank You for your consideration
    Ari Miller



MTC-00019748

From: Dean Chouinard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I have worked with Microsoft software for over 
10 years and I have a problem with the settlement because it does 
not prohibit Microsoft from inserting intentional incompatibilities 
in their software to eliminate competition. This one tactic, which 
has been technically documented, has probably done the most damage 
to progress in software development resulting in buggy programs, 
which I am sure you are aware of in your daily work environment.
    Sincerely,
    Dean Chouinard
    Taunton, Massachusetts; Programmer.



MTC-00019749

From: Barton Grantham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Seeing as how the future of human civilization hangs on our 
ability to create, communicate, store, and freely exchange 
information, I'd say that any settlement that doesn't fully address 
Microsoft's unethical attempts to monopolize for great profit the 
ability to do the above is inadequate. While I appreciate that 
Microsoft's products enable many companies to streamline their 
information infrastructure and that to the technology outsider, they 
may have been seen as the engine of the Information Revolution, this 
is actually just a subjective observation. The driving force behind 
the Information Revolution has been, and continues to be, 
semiconductor manufacturing. Due to advances in semiconductor 
manufacturing our computers are now tens of thousands of times 
faster than they were a mere 2 decades ago. I don't believe it is a 
stretch to say that the miracles of modern software that MS products 
make possible could have been achieved by ANY company. In fact, many 
groups have achieved more than MS with less resources, all by riding 
this wave of exponential hardware upgrades. This is all to say that 
they are not the cutting edge technology company that many believe 
them to be. In fact, most industry insiders consider them to be VERY 
conservative with regards to research and development, always erring 
on the side of profitabiliy at the expense of technological progress 
and customer benefit.
    There is no mistaking that there have been many competitors to 
MS who simply failed to take advantage of a situation where they had 
a strategic advantage. There have been books written about how 
Apple, IBM, Commodore, DEC, Atari, Netscape, etc. all ``dropped 
the ball'' when they ere competing head to head with MS in the 
marketplace. HOWEVER, for every instance of misjudgement on the part 
of MS's competitors, there is at least one instance of unethical and 
often illegal business practices that gave MS not just an advantage, 
but exclusivity to a market. Many of these have been touched upon by 
the trial, but most in not enough detail. In particular, their 
``bootloader'' policy combined with their licensing policy 
has been extraordinarily harsh:
-They insist that if a hardware vendor sells even one machine 
with a copy of windows, that they must pay a license for windows for 
EVERY machine they sell. Agree to this and you get a 90% reduction 
in license cost. Disagree and you pay retail cost per machine.
-They insist that if you install windows on a machine, it can 
be the ONLY operating system natively bootable on that machine.
    These two policies combine to make a marketplace where now 
literally NOBODY can compete in the ``Installed Operating 
System'' market. With regards to the proposed settlement where 
MS provides schools with free hardware and software . . . 
This is not a settlement at all! The education market is one market 
that MS has always found it difficult to compete due to Apple's 
being entrenched there. This settlement is effectively a way for MS 
to gain a foothold into a market where they could EASILY recoop 
their ``billion lost dollars'' within a single software 
upgrade cycle. On top of this, there are two additional problems. MS 
claims that they would provide a billion dollars worth of their own 
product, but it must be understood that their product is infinitely 
producable for very little money. What would cost them a million 
dollars in CD duplication fees could pay a billion dollar court 
fine. The second problem is that, combined with the fact that these 
schools would likely not have purchased MS software in the first 
place, this would actually be a positive market movement for the 
company, not a punishment. Finally, to make clear: Microsoft has 
been ``dumping'' in the market for decades, banking on 
it's one day becoming a monopoly and being able to recoop costs by 
price gouging. The mechanism that has made this possible is 
stockholder capital. -Right now-is when it will begin 
this price gouging because their stockholders are chomping at the 
bit for a dividend. Microsoft has to either suffer the consequences 
of a stock crash or squeeze as much money from their customer base 
as possible. The .NET initiative and their model of `software 
as service' is part of their plan to entrench themselves as an 
infrastructure company. If this is not stopped, then the technology 
industry can expect the 20 years to belong to Microsoft and the 
average US consumer can expect their participation in digital 
technology to be accompanied by a ``Microsoft Tax''.
    As a technologist and computer programmer for more than 20 
years, I must insist that there be NO settlement and NO easy path 
for this unethical, irresponsible, and destructive company. Our 
future literally depends on this company being stopped.
    Bart Grantham
    ([email protected])



MTC-00019750

From: Thomas J. Kempkes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Final Judgement posted at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/
cases/f9400/9462.htm is unacceptable and should not be pursued any 
further. The stipulations regarding the withholding of APIs and the 
leeway given to Microsoft to dictate the choice of middleware 
products are the most repugnent of the bunch.
    Abandon this settlement. Either write a new settlement, which 
doesn't give Microsoft so much power, or get back in the courtroom 
and go for the jugular. For heaven's sake, Microsoft's been found 
guilty of being a monopoly and abusing that power to the detriment 
of the American people and their 


[[Page 26773]]


economy; don't just call off the 
hunt now, you've got them where you want them. If I didn't know 
better, I'd say this new administration was soft on enforcing 
antitrust laws.



MTC-00019751

From: Craig
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/23/02 10:31pm
Subject: bad settlement
    I remember how Microsoft sold licenses to computer box 
assemblers entitling them the load the operating system onto the 
computer before sale to the consumer. Microsoft charged by the total 
number of computers the assembler sold. So if the assembler's 
customer (the consumer, aka the American citizen) wanted a different 
operating system, the customer would pay for paying Microsoft, then 
on top of that pay for the different operating system. Now that's 
monopoly.
    Better educated than the Taliban, with more opportunities, and 
always living in a free society, Microsoft has chosen evil at every 
turn. Reject settlement. Go for dismemberment.



MTC-00019752

From: George Gilpatrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I struggled through the morass of information on the settlement 
and decided the best way to respond would be tell you what I thought 
and you tell me if the Tunney Act will do this:
    I believe in this country and the spirit that founded it. This 
spirit was a restless drive for freedom of intellectual expression, 
refusal to allow troops to be quartered in our houses, and the 
freedom to pursue our ideas.
    Microsoft has systematically sought to suppress intellectual 
expression, done everything in it's power to force us to have its 
operating system in our home, and denied us the ability to freely 
develop software on our own systems without paying a tax. Sounds 
like King Bill to me.
    Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. 
. . .



MTC-00019753

From: Cameron Just
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to vote against the proposed settlement for the 
Microsoft case. I believe that the proposed settlement will benefit 
microsoft rather than punish it. The settlement will also harm 
microsofts competitors and strengthen microsoft proven monopoly 
position.
    Even though I live in Australia I believe that my vote should 
count as this company is not only affecting US consumers but global 
consumers.
    Cameron Just
    5 Ormond Tce
    Indooroopilly
    Qld Australia
    4068



MTC-00019754

From: Darin Hawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've been a software developer for only five years now, but in 
that time I have developed a great appreciation for the freedom 
afforded by standards and interoperability. I have come to believe 
that above all else, data should be free from all encumbrances. 
Standard file formats ensure that I will always have the ability to 
access and/or share the data I have created no matter what the 
circumstances.
    The proposed final judgement has absolutely nothing to say in 
this matter, even though it was explicitly identified as a barrier 
to entry. I believe that the proposal falls far short of providing a 
level playing field in the industry, not to mention exacting no real 
damages from a corporation who has systematically abused the 
industry for years. In frustration, I often vow to renounce the use 
of Microsoft software. But how can I do so when they hold my own 
personal documents hostage?



MTC-00019755

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing this letter regarding the Microsoft anti-trust 
matter out of personal concern for the harm that has occurred and 
continues to occur in the computer software marketplace and 
consumers.
    Based on the information that has been provided on the proposed 
settlement, I feel, very strongly, that it will provide absolutely 
no relief from Microsoft's illegal business practices. I think that 
the most blatant point that the settlement fails to correct is 
Microsoft's continued hindrance of competing products. Microsoft is 
in a position to bully any competitor into submission because of its 
near 100% dominance of the desktop market. In this position, no 
company will be able to compete, even if it provides its software 
for free.
    In my opinion, the only way to correct the Microsoft monopoly 
and somewhat level the playing field is to force Microsoft to openly 
publish the programing interface to its Windows Operating Systems 
(and that includes Internet Explorer-Microsoft says that it is 
now a core part of its Operating System) and its applications file 
formats (i.e., MS Office). This provision is included in the current 
proposed settlement, but only provides this information for 
companies that are somehow ``certified'' by Microsoft. The 
information should be public to all companies and individuals, 
including security related API's (excluding API's that involve 
security will essentially exclude all API's. All programming 
interfaces have some form of security included). Providing this 
information, to everyone, will allow companies and private 
individuals to create applications that extend, inter operate and 
compete with the Microsoft Windows platform.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the 
settlement case. I am truly hopeful that some benefit is realized in 
the software marketplace as a result of this case. Unfortunately 
though, unless significant changes are made to the settlement, 
absolutely no improvement to the competitive landscape will be 
realized and consumers will continue to be harmed.
    Bill Deller
    27535 El Ferrol Drive
    Mission Viejo, CA 92692



MTC-00019756

From: Pete Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I do not think that the Microsoft Settlement is harsh enough. 
This is another case of ``He who has the most money 
wins''. Microsoft is receiving a slap on the wrist and is being 
asked nicely to please play fair. They will continue to have a 
monopoly of the operating system market and will continue their 
unfail business practices under this ruling.
    Windows remains popular not because of stability and security, 
but because it is the only operation system that Microsoft will 
allow OEM's to put on their computers. If they want to sell 
Microsoft, they must not sell anything else.
    This is like one company manufacturing the engines for every 
automobile sold on every lot in the country. Most people don't build 
their own cars, so they wouldn't know that another kind of engine 
existed. Just like most people won't remove the engine that came 
with the automobile, most won't remove windows and install another 
operation system.
    If windows is as good as Microsoft claims, let's let consumers 
make the decision. Give them a choice of buying a computer from the 
local department store running windows, linux, unix, etc.
    If there is only one name on the ballot, voters have no freedom.
    Pete Smith
    Electronics Technician
    Formerly Third Class Petty Officer, USN



MTC-00019757

From: Tim Malone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-
trust case, does not go far enough to restrict Microsoft's anti-
competitive activities.
    For instance, Section III.B allows them to offer discounts on 
Windows to OEMs based on the number of copies of other Microsoft 
products they buy. This allows them to leverage their intel-
compatible operating system monopoly to gain dominance in other 
markets, like the the embedded OS market.
    Also, the restrictions placed on the use of the documentation 
released to the competition by Microsoft, nullify the effects of 
having the documentation. To truly open up the field of competition, 
the API documentation should be released to the public domain, and 
no longer locked down under patents and copyrights.


[[Page 26774]]


    Tim Malone



MTC-00019758

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I have watched the Microsoft anti-trust trial closely. Being a 
firm believer that Microsoft has mis-used its monopoly, I was very 
dismayed when the Justice Department settled the case so lamely. I 
do not think this is in the public interest. Already, Microsoft is 
trying to stretch its monopoly with Windows XP, .NET technologies, 
Web services etc. If you look at all these products, it is clear 
that Microsoft is intent on pursuing its dominating practices. There 
is much innovation that can happen in the Web services and other 
arenas ... but only if Microsoft is forced to allow it.
    Yours sincerely
    Arvind Kannan



MTC-00019759

From: Rohit Singh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I think that the DOJ's settlement with Microsoft is short-
sighted and in very bad judgement. Rather than thinking about the 
customers and fighting it out, DOJ is just taking the easy way out.
    Thanks,
    rohit singh



MTC-00019760

From: Frans de Wet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish that this be counted as a vote AGAINST the proposed 
settlement!
    Thanks,
    Frans de Wet
    Tallahassee, F 32308



MTC-00019761

From: Patty MacDuffie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Can we please get this thing settled so that the companies 
involved can get back to business instead of litigation? I can't 
believe the amount of tax dollars being spent on this worthless 
litigation; why does the government insist on prosecuting those that 
are successful? Yeah, let's tax away, litigate away, any ideas 
anybody might have of the American dream. Let's make it so costly 
and painful that nobody does it. That's the way to keep a lot of 
lawyers and politicians employed, but it does very little for 
anybody else!
    Patty MacDuffie



MTC-00019763

From: Eric Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a citizen of the United States and a user and developer of 
Microsoft Windows-based software, I am writing in strong support of 
the settlement reached by the US Department of Justice, the nine 
settling states (including, proudly, my state of residence, North 
Carolina), and Microsoft to end the antitrust case against 
Microsoft. I have worked in the computer industry for 15 years. 
During that time, I have watched how Microsoft's vision has moved 
the PC industry from toy computers running MS-DOS to powerful 
workstations running mission critical applications. Microsoft has 
earned their large market share in the desktop operating system 
market, by delivering consistently improving products to the 
marketplace that solve people's problems at very reasonable prices.
    During a time in the late 1980's, I worked for a company that, 
like many others, was undertaking office automation-converting 
from manual methods of document preparation to computer-based 
methods. This company had both UNIX-based and Windows-based 
computers in-house. At the time, Windows-based computers were 
notoriously unstable, so we tried desperately to find an office 
automation solution on UNIX-based computers. Unfortunately, it did 
not exist. Microsoft, on the other hand, had a suite of applications 
that worked better together than any suite of office applications 
running on any platform at the time. We went with Microsoft and 
lived with the instability. This is the stuff of which Microsoft's 
market share is made. Microsoft delivered products, and their 
competitors failed to execute.
    For the past seven years, I have worked as a developer of 
software that runs on Microsoft Windows. It is a pleasure to develop 
software for Microsoft Windows. The documentation that Microsoft 
provides through the Microsoft Developer's Network is phenomenal, 
and unmatched by any other company in the industry. Their new 
software development tool, Visual Studio.NET, is the best tool for 
developing software that has ever been created. When you combine the 
ease of developing for Microsoft with the suite of excellent 
applications that Microsoft also produces, you end up with a 
platform that is the most successfully competitive and innovative in 
the marketplace.
    The problem with monopolies is supposed to be that they charge 
high prices and stagnate. Microsoft's competitors, who are urging 
the judge in this case to throw out the settlement, could only wish 
that Microsoft had stagnated and charged high prices. That is the 
real problem for Microsoft's competitors: Microsoft competes 
incredibly well. This demonstrates what members of the Austrian 
School of Economics pointed out 100 years ago: Monopolies that do 
not have ``legal'' barriers to entry protecting them are 
no threat to anyone, because they are powerless to stop competitors 
from entering. There is, of course, no guarantee that 
``worthy'' competitors will in fact appear, but that is 
not the dominant company's fault.
    In looking through the opinion from the US Court of Appeals, 
there is exactly one offense committed by Microsoft that should be 
illegal-the breach of contract and fraud in the Sun Java 
matter. But breach of contract and fraud are illegal for companies 
regardless of market share, and Sun took appropriate action to 
remedy the matter by suing Microsoft. The appearance of the Java 
matter in the antitrust case is merely double jeopardy.
    Other accusations made against Microsoft are for actions that 
should not be illegal for any company, regardless of market share. 
In the case of Intel, the relationship that Intel enjoyed with 
Microsoft was responsible for much of its profit. For Intel to use 
that profit to develop software that would potentially compete with 
Microsoft's products is absolutely something that Microsoft should 
have a right to respond to. All Microsoft did was threaten to take 
some of their business elsewhere. The right to take one's business 
elsewhere is a fundamental right that all individuals and 
corporations, regardless of market share, must enjoy if we are to 
call this a free society. The fact that the antitrust laws enjoin 
such conduct for a company with large market share is merely another 
reason that the antitrust laws must be repealed. Similarly, 
Microsoft's actions in developing and promoting Internet Explorer 
through innovative marketing agreements should also be their 
absolute right. There can be no doubt that Microsoft's dominance in 
desktop operating systems gave them an advantage for getting 
Internet Explorer into the hands of users. But it was an advantage 
that they earned. Microsoft's push of Windows into people's homes 
also created a huge market for Netscape to sell into.
    The most absurd concept in court filings that I have read is the 
concept of the ``applications barrier to entry'', and the 
notion that the court must take action to reduce or eliminate it. 
The so-called ``applications barrier to entry'' actually 
represents what an incredible job Microsoft has done creating 
software that works well together to solve the problems of their 
customers, and the great job Microsoft has done making it easy for 
third parties to develop software for Windows (Visual Basic being 
one shining example). Those who are calling for a reduction in the 
``applications barrier to entry'' are asking Microsoft to 
be punished for the great things they have done, not for those 
things they have (allegedly) done wrong.
    The antitrust case against Microsoft has been an embarrassment 
for the United States. It is time to bring it to a close in a way 
that prevents the most egregious (in the opinion of some) conduct, 
while leaving Microsoft free to innovate and enjoy the advantages 
that their 20-year history of developing great software that is 
accessible to the masses. Microsoft's competitors have had ample 
opportunity to get their act together over the last 20 years and put 
forward a platform that would compete seriously with Windows. Those 
competitors have failed miserably at every turn, and now seek to use 
the fact that everyone wants Microsoft's products against Microsoft 
to gain an advantage that they were unable to earn in the 
marketplace. The settlement is a punishment that fits the crime. 
Please accept it and let us move on.
    Sincerely,
    Eric W. Hill
    208 Wedgemere St.


[[Page 26775]]


    Apex, NC 27502



MTC-00019764

From: Joe Norton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:34pm
Subject: MS anti trust
    It blows my mind how there is any doubt as to whether MS should 
be broken up. Look at what the break up of AT&T, and the 
telecommunications act of 1996, did for the telco industry. If that 
had not happened, we would probably still be using rotary phones and 
would have never heard of DSL or T1's. While MS has produced a 
product that has helped spawn the digital age and the growth of the 
internet, they have become a fat cat company who decides to play by 
there own rules. Imagine the innovation that would result if 
everyone had there chance to produce there own version of Windows. 
Not only would consumers enjoy more choices and most likely lower 
prices, but the fact that anyone can tweak the Windows platform to 
their own ideas would mean new uses for the PC in the home and 
office that no one today could even imagine. Or, we could let MS 
decide the future of the PC, which , without a doubt would be a 
future friendly to MS and there stock prices.



MTC-00019765

From: Steve Richards
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don't let them off the hook. If you do we will never have a 
computer operating system that doesn't crash... They destroyed 
Novell, Netscape, OS/2, Digital Research, and probably many others
    Steve Richards
    72 Pleasant St
    Norwell, MA 02061
    



MTC-00019766

From: Jason Naglich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the current settlement proposed with Microsoft is a 
mistake. Give Microsoft's past track record and their ability to 
stifle new technology rather than innovate is more reason to split 
them up than to let them stay a single entity. As an IT 
professional, that is my opinion. Thank you for your time.
    Jason Naglich



MTC-00019767

From: Annette Mercer Alexis Wieland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I do not like the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft case. It 
does little to prevent continuation of their monopoly and little to 
punish their past behavior. It also appears to offer little 
enforcement.
    We are an average family using a PC for word processing, games, 
desk top publishing, etc. I would like to have more options of 
programs and more ability to mix and match. I think it would be in 
the public interest to have more competition.
    Sincerely,
    Annette Mercer
    2647 Glendon Ave
    Los Angeles, CA 90064



MTC-00019768

From: (042) (035)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I find it appalling that Microsoft, for all intents and 
purposes, will not be penalised for the monopolistic business 
practices they have engaged in and the contempt with which they have 
treated PC users and consumers worldwide.
    Your job here is to hold them accountable and at the same time 
ensure they are deterred from engaging in such practices again. A 
softly, softly approach will not be a win for the computing public 
nor will it discourage those that follow after Microsoft.
    Michael Walker



MTC-00019769

From: Hector Arroyo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You'll be getting alot of these so I'll keep it brief.
    The remedies are far too lenient in regards to Microsoft. The 
remedy it's suggested for itself would actually have the effect of 
increasing it's market share in school while simultaneously 
decreasing the primary computer platform's (it's competitor Mac) 
presence in the classroom additionally they would have us allow them 
to inculcate our nations youth into their software while they're 
still in school. The notion that this company is willing to offer 
such a remedy on it's behalf ostensibly to correct it's behavior but 
ultimately to increase it's mindshare is a slap in the face of the 
justice you should be upholding as it's care taker for our nation.
    As to what remedies should be imposed I'm no expert but it seems 
to me that they should be closely watched by government 
representatives at their own expense. They should be required to 
submit to free agents whose salaries are paid for by Microsoft to 
have complete free roam of their facilities/practices/contracts etc 
for a period of not less than 10 years. Such free agents would be 
required to make monthly reports, as well as a comprehensive yearly 
report, to the appropriate agency.
    They should be required to eliminate their surplus revenue as 
profit to their shareholders. Part of Microsoft's problem is that 
they tend to utilize their enormous bank account to threaten 
competition. Microsoft should be made to make financial restitution 
to any and all individuals and corporations that have been harmed by 
it's acts. Microsoft should be banned from creating or conducting 
any new businesses outside the software for pc platforms and support 
and development of it's subsidiary business already created such as 
Xbox.
    Failing that. Separate Microsoft into component companies each 
to have free government agents reporting on it's behavior.



MTC-00019770

From: Frederic W. Brehm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is inadequate. If I violated Federal 
law, I would be punished. Just saying ``I promise not to do 
that again'' would not be acceptable to the court. A violation 
of Federal law requires punishment AND some way of assuring that the 
violation will not be repeated. Microsoft has managed to dodge both 
the punishment and the assurance in the past. It's time to make sure 
that it does not happen again.
    I am a software engineer who specializes in real-time embedded 
systems. I know something about the architecture, design, and 
implementation of computer systems. A modern operating system 
divides responsibilities among programs that run in separate 
``address spaces'' or in separate computers communicating 
through some communication channel.
    Microsoft should publish the details of the programming 
interface that allows programs in separate address spaces or on 
separate computers to interact, and how they store persistent 
information in files or other storage media. This is not the same as 
the implementation of the programs; source code does not have to be 
disclosed. The information is only how to talk to the programs. This 
will prevent Microsoft from using proprietary interfaces to drain 
the ``oxygen'' from potential competitors.
    This information should be disclosed for any program, operating 
system, hardware, or other object that Microsoft sells at retail, or 
delivers to distributors, OEM's or special partners to be sold as 
part of a bundle of hardware, software, or services. This 
information must be disclosed in a reasonable time frame and errors 
corrected in a reasonable time frame. This time frame should be 
short enough that Microsoft does not gain competitive advantage over 
others who wish to make use of the interfaces. (This is part of the 
punishment.) The information should be free of any encumbrances or 
restrictions on its use. An independent auditor should should be 
appointed to judge the timeliness of the publication of the 
information, and nobody should be enjoined from suing to gain timely 
access to the information. If the auditor or a judicial proceeding 
finds that Microsoft has illegally restricted the information, then 
the full source code for the affected program must be published with 
no restrictions on its use.
    Another method that Microsoft has used to extend its monopoly is 
to provide special pricing in exchange for special favors. While 
this is not, in general, a bad thing for a business to engage in, it 
is very bad for a monopoly to use this method to leverage its market 
dominance. As a punishment, Microsoft should be prevented (perhaps 
for 


[[Page 26776]]


some limited time like five or ten years) from using 
differential pricing in all markets. Microsoft should use a uniform 
pricing schedule for all customers. The pricing can vary by volume, 
and perhaps by gross market segment (OEM, government, education), 
but should not vary by combinations of products ordered nor should 
the schedule dissect the market into tiny segments that change over 
the time the restriction is in effect. Judicial oversight must be 
exercised, perhaps by allowing lawsuits by plaintiffs that believe 
that they were classified incorrectly.
    This is an outline of what I think would be a fair and equitable 
arrangement with a company that has never played fair, nor has 
understood their relationship to the government that protects them. 
If the company cannot abide by these restrictions, then it must be 
broken into separate pieces that do not command a monopoly power 
over their respective markets.
    Sincerely,
    Frederic W. Brehm
    31 Nassau Drive
    Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-1443
    1-609-844-0747
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00019771

From: Terry Magee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wisht that this be counted as a vote AGAINST the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft.
    Thanks,
    Mona T Magee
    Tallahassee, FL 32308



MTC-00019772

From: Ken Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a very weak punishment for 
Microsoft. In general it will give them more power to use their 
monopoly . It will be especially bad for future recourse as a 
precedence will already have been set. PLEASE re consider and impose 
a stronger remedy.
    Ken Thompson,
    North West Antique Autos
    Payette, Idaho
    Email: [email protected]
    http://www.nwaa.com



MTC-00019773

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea because
-It does little to punish Microsoft for past misdeeds on the 
competitive arena,
-Does even less to insure Microsoft does not repeat its anti-
competitive behavior.
-Amounts to a tolerance of a virtual monopoly, against the 
public interest.
    Profoundly disappointed,
    Julio A. Cartaya



MTC-00019774

From: Richard A. Ortt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached is a letter for the Attorney General. I debated about 
sending this until I heard about Netscape's lawsuit. Someone should 
sue Netscape for its bad software.
    Dick Ortt

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 11, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my thoughts regarding the settlement of 
the Microsoft case. To begin with, this case was ludicrous from its 
inception. It is way past time that this case is settled and I 
certainly hope that there will be no further delay in the process.
    I worked in the computer industry for many years, building 
computer systems for the telephone industry. I have used various 
products and dealt with Microsoft as well as many of its 
competitors. Microsoft may have perhaps used their position 
unfairly, but that only happened because of their wise business 
decisions and exceptional products. As part of the settlement, 
Microsoft is giving away interface design information, protocol for 
their server systems and they are allowing competitors'' 
software on their Windows platform. They have also agreed to make 
several changes in their unsavory business practices to restore fair 
competition to the computer industry. Combined, all of this 
addresses the problems that were accused of Microsoft and adequately 
represents the public interest.
    This whole issue has been a farce that selfish politicians have 
used to gain attention and popularity. Despite their supposed 
problems, Microsoft has set a standard for the entire computer 
industry. The computer industry and the entire economy would be much 
better off if Microsoft is allowed to get back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Ortt



MTC-00019775

From: Nadia Pervez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:37pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is bad.
    Sincerely,
    Nadia Pervez
    Graduate Student
    Electrical & Computer engineering
    University of California
    Santa Barbara CA 93106
    805-893-5935x222



MTC-00019776

From: Andrew Zolli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am very disturbed by the current settlement offer made by DOJ 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. In particular, I am in complete 
agreement with the critique of the settlement posted on http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. I believe that increased 
competition is vital to the growth of the computer industry, and 
that the current settlement does not go far enough to discourage 
Microsoft's anticompetitive practices.
    I urge you to discard or improve the current settlement.
    Yours truly,
    Andrew Zolli
    Brooklyn, NY



MTC-00019777

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am utterly dismayed with the Department of Justice's proposed 
Microsoft settlement, because it is so full of loopholes that 
Microsoft will have no legal fetters to curb their predatory 
behavior. Just as happened with the first antitrust decree, of 
February 14, 1995, wherin Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin refused to 
approve the consent decree negotiated between the U.S. Government 
and Microsoft to settle the antitrust complaint filed against 
Microsoft by the Government at that time, Microsoft will be able to 
skirt around the terms of the present settlement offered by the 
Department of Justice, because it is just too full of holes. Stop 
Microsoft's predatory behavior NOW, by throwing out the Department 
of Justice's proposed settlement and demanding a settlement that 
will have strong controls over Microsoft's behavior. The present 
Department of Justice proposed settlement is an atrocious 
miscarriage of justice.
    Edmond Jane
    45 Fourth Street
    Bay Center, WA 98527-0444



MTC-00019778

From: Rohit Singh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I would like to register my protest against the proposed 
remedies in the Microsoft case. In particular, I'd like to point to 
Microsoft's use of proprietary file-formats to counter competition 
against its suite of MS Office product. At the same time, 
Microsoft's decision to not support free and open-source OSes means 
that compatible software is not available to a signficant fraction 
of the consumers. As such, this issue should be taken care of.
    Thanks,
    Rohit Singh



MTC-00019779

From: Devon Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    As a computer user, and IT professional, I feel very strongly 
that the proposed Microsoft Settlement will do nothing to punish 
past monopolistic practices, or to prevent future violations of 
anti-trust law. Most importantly, what the settlement fails to 
address is that 


[[Page 26777]]


Microsoft is already entrenched in a dominant, 
monopolistic position, achieved in large part through unfair 
business practices. Creating a Technical Committee may (or may not) 
help with future problems, but does nothing to fix what has already 
transpired.
    Lastly (for this letter; I do not pretend that I am addressing a 
majority of the problems with the settlement), I would point out 
that much of Microsoft's monopoly is maintained through mechanisms 
not mentioned in the settlement. For example, Microsoft Word is the 
dominant word processing software mainly because it's file format is 
proprietary and controlled by Microsoft-and changed 
frequently, so that no other program can reliably use it. If a 
standard file format were enforced, competing products would have a 
chance to co-exist and interoperate with Word; something that just 
cannot happen today. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to 
reject this settlement and seek stronger action against Microsoft.
    Devon Stephens



MTC-00019780

From: Ken Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disgusted that the my government continues to attack the 
most innovative, progressive company in this country. Microsoft does 
more in a day for this country then AOL, SUN and the other whiners 
do in a year. The won't compete on price or product, so they use 
patsies like the government to protect their fat margins and 
laziness. This is supposed to be America-where hard work gets 
you ahead, not sued.
    Disgusting.



MTC-00019781

From: rworth@students. depaul.edu@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    [Reprinted with permission of the original author: Brian Koppe, 
Buffalo Grove, IL]
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. It is my understanding that the purpose of the 
Proposed Final Judgement should be to reduce, as much as possible, 
the Applications Barrier to Entry. In other words, make the market 
more open to competition from other products. After reading the 
Proposed Final Judgement and multiple essays on its problems and 
benefits, I have noticed many things that I take issue with. 
However, I'd like to focus on one in particular. This problem is in 
the issue of Microsoft End User License Agreements (EULA).
    It has been shown that Microsoft creates EULA's that place 
anticompetitive restrictions on the user, and that Microsoft has 
intentionally created incompatibilities to keep users from using 
Windows applications on compatible operating systems that are not 
Windows. One example of this is in the license agreement for the 
Microsoft software, NewsAlert-offered by MSNBC. In that 
license it says,
    ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft 
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. ...''
    Users of competing operating systems, such as Linux, which are 
capable of running some Windows applications are not legally 
capable, under this restrictive license, to use this program. One 
suggestion as to how restrictive licenses such as this should be 
forced to be changed is for the excerpt above to be re-written as 
follows:
    ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating 
system.''
    In the past, it has been shown that Microsoft places technical 
barriers on competition as well. The 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft case 
shows how Microsoft added code to its product so that, when run on a 
competing operating system (DR- DOS in this case), it would give the 
user an error. As I'm sure you can easily look up, the judge ruled 
that ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.''
    Unfortunately, with the Proposed Final Judgement as it stands, 
there is no language to prohibit these restrictive licenses nor is 
there language to prohibit future intentional incompatabilities. 
Therefore, in its current state, the Proposed Final Judgement 
assists Microsoft in continuing these actions and does not succeed 
in opening the Applications Barrier to Entry. In closing, I would 
like to add my support for Dan Kegel's essay, ``On the Proposed 
Final Judgement in United States v Microsoft,'' located at 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html, which is the source of the 
facts I have included in this letter. I would also like to add my 
support for his suggested amendments to the Proposed Final 
Judgement, which are described near the end of his essay, and to the 
alternate settlement proposed by some of the plaintif states and 
located on the website for the National Association of Attorneys 
General at http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms- 
remedy_filing.pdf.
    Sincerely,
    Ryan Worth Chicago, Illinios



MTC-00019782

From: bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is with the utmost respect and confidence that I address you 
with my grievances. It is without question that Microsoft has 
practiced monopolistic business practices. They have grossly 
hindered innovation by dismantling the machine of progress. Buying 
out competitors, and using an army of lawyers to protect their 
actions. While the army of lawyers and publicists have sold us a 
tale of a company that encourages competition by providing us 
software. They no longer sell us software they rent it to us behind 
EULA that forces us to surrender the fair use of the products they 
offer. They have taken drastic steps to prevent pc manufactures from 
selling pc without windows at the same time claiming to support 
innovation and diversity. They have eliminated the consumer's 
ability to choose other products. Consumers are the worse for the 
monopolies actions. The economy is dependant on innovation to create 
and maintain new industries and new technologies and in turn those 
innovations create new industries that they create. It is this 
injustice to the economy of the United States of America that is the 
true injustice. This is precisely why the Anti-Trust Laws exist to 
protect small businesses, major corporations and the innovations 
that make this nation great. The illegal and destructive damage 
caused by Microsoft have gone unpunished because they have a well 
funded army to hide behind. The money earned for the products forced 
upon a society without choice is used to further entrench the 
position of power by removing competitors. The list of companies and 
technologies they have assimilated include the likes of Novell, Sun, 
and IBM along with numbers of smaller ones. Netscape Navigator is a 
product from the top of the list.
    I hope you will repay the injustice of this giant monopoly 
Microsoft Corporation by breaking the stranglehold they have on our 
country. Every empire is built at a cost. Microsoft has paid with 
the innovations of an industry. They're plunder is at the expense of 
our way of life and our liberty.
    Open Source the technologies they have hindered. Break their 
hold on the industry. Prevent them from making deals with OEM's and 
forcing their product on a us. Provide the ability for others to 
create similar products that will promote competition.
    Separate the Browser from the operating system. Divide Microsoft 
into separate corporations: Operating Systems, Office Applications, 
and Business Class Servers.
    Bill Brinkley
    MIS Technician
    The Baptist College of Florida



MTC-00019783

From: Clayton Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:40pm
Subject: Settlement is unfair to consumers
    The proposed settlement by Microsoft does nothing to address or 
remedy the monopolistic practices that Microsoft continues to employ 
daily. Please do not allow this to continue as the entire tech 
industry is destined to be rolled over by the money roll that 
Microsoft is using against smaller competitors.
    Thanks to Microsofts practices, there are extremely high 
barriers to entry into the market for entire sectors of software, 
since they are using their predominance in the OS market to extend 
into other segments ie: WebBrowsers.


[[Page 26778]]




MTC-00019784

From: Matthew Ostwald
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is not only insufficient, it actually extends 
Microsoft's monopoly. I find it utterly amazing that it was even 
considered in the first place.
    Although I am currently living in Japan, Microsoft's monopoly 
affects the rest of the world as well. Please reconsider this 
settlement, for the sake of the computing industry.
    Thank you.
    Matthew Ostwald
    Senior Engineer
    Computec Engineering Ltd
    Prince Avenue Bldg, 7th Floor
    3-33 Kioicho, Chiyoda-ku
    Tokyo 102-0094
    Japan
    Telephone+81 3 3511 8190
    Fax+81 3 3511 8198



MTC-00019785

From: Christine Palma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a tech-savvy voter who is opposed to the Microsoft 
settlement because it does not adequately compensate the people and 
businesses of the US nor is it strict enough to prevent further 
uncompetitive behavior.
    Regards,
    Christine Palma
    (714) 979-3414



MTC-00019786

From: Alfred Lang
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that this settlement is absolutely shameful!
    This is the last opportunity to stop a runaway corporate monster 
from buying Justice.
    No computer in the world has been sold without a Microsoft 
operating system, and if that isn't a monopoly, I don't know what 
isn't!! Yes, EVERY computer, as M$ owns a part of Apple.
    No other company can hope to offer competition if this 
settlement goes through.
    I'm an American, working for an American company, and would find 
it difficult to hold my head up, knowing that my own government 
cares less about me, than an aberration that has taken business 
ethics to new lows.
    Hopeful,
    Alfred Lang
    Testing Specialist
    Level 2 / 293 Camberwell Rd.
    Camberwell VIC 3124 Australia
    (v) +61 (3) 9811 8027
    (f) +61 (3) 9811 8099
    Nasdaq: QSFT
    www.quest.com



MTC-00019787

From: John Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:33pm
Subject: AOL COMMENTS
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I can't say that I was surprised at the filing by AOL against 
Microsoft, there are however several things I would like to comment 
on. AOL uses a proprietary version of the TCP/IP protocol that is 
the language of the internet so to speak. By doing so make their 
communications protocol proprietary and when someone decides to 
switch to another ISP they find out their computer either crashes or 
locks up. These persons have no trouble in going back to AOL but 
can't leave, and they don't get much help from AOL, what they have 
to do is replace files modified on their computers to make the 
switch away from AOL. I speak on this as someone working in the 
computer field and I get calls from people as to what to do. Often, 
I have to download the files they need and install them on their 
systems for them. AOL through some rather shabby accounting is also 
taking a loss this quarter to the tune of $60B, this is good that 
they are restating their shareholders equity, but a decrease of 33% 
in one quarter smells a lot more like Enron than anything else. If 
the DOJ wanted to do something they could along with the SEC and 
FASB straighten out this sort of thing. Finally, it would appear 
that they would have to be pretty dumb in the first place since they 
bought Netscape's browser after an earlier court ruled there was no 
law violation in Microsoft adding the browser. AOL also 
interestingly had a relationship with Microsoft that placed their 
service on the Desktop via the OS software installation. Even though 
they owned Netscape they found using Microsoft for customer 
acquisition, and installing their Internet Explorer browser a better 
way to go. Product reviews in the WSJ gave the lead to Microsoft as 
well. Since AOL owned Netscape, and since they didn't deem it a 
priority to push their browser, it seems they are responsible even 
more so for its market share. One of the reasons that I upgrade 
computers is because of the software that is bundled with them. It 
is also of course for the newer hardware as well, but there is no 
comparing the value of a system that has the OS software you want, 
and the productivity software as well. Since the DOJ started their 
antitrust actions against Microsoft I don't think that I have had 
the same value as I used to.
    The Europeans seem to be following your precedent of litigation 
as well, if you are successful in disciplining Microsoft in the ways 
that Scott McNeally and Steve Case would like, you will undermine 
innovation and value both. Only corporate purchasers will have the 
ability to leverage the software combinations they want, the small 
business and consumer will have been screwed. This is not the way 
Microsoft's antagonists would view it however, to them it would be a 
victory. So much of the software I have bought comes with one year 
support, and nothing after that without paying each year. This is 
not unlike Microsoft's way of doing business, but they put so much 
free help on their web site I don't mind having a problem. Programs 
from Intuit, Corel and others have failed in some aspect or another 
and their answers are buy the new version. When Enron collapsed, 
there was a big loss to peoples retirements both in the case of 
State run funds and individuals. The amount of loss to the consumer 
was of course significant, clearly to me as a result of the 
antitrust suit against Microsoft much much more was lost to 
investors in the roughly $300B decline in the capitalization of 
Microsoft. Microsoft has made software that was hard to use, easier 
to use, more versatile, more desirable, less likely to need a 
continuing support from the source, and moved specialized software 
to commodity product status. To witness, Oracle was the king of data 
base software, now you can buy it at Wal-Mart. If diversity is so 
great why are their eight versions of UNIX, none of which are 
compatible with one another? Take the example of Sun Microsystems, 
if they used someone else's version they would have to pay licensing 
fees, so they customized their own. Now they can collect maintenance 
fees duh. Not a thing that the antagonist want is for the consumer, 
it is against the consumer and for each of their bottom lines. And 
in the case of the State's AGs, it is for their political gain. I 
can't see how you are ever going to go anywhere trying to develop a 
formula that simultaneously solves an equation with twenty variables 
that keeps changing all the time. I am glad that my AG in Montana is 
not a part of this fiasco, and I made a point of telling them so. 
The people who signed on to this action against Microsoft have made 
it easy for me to decide who not to vote for. I believe they have 
degraded the standards of justice, and the continuation of this 
continues that course.
    John Johnston,
    Boulder, Montana



MTC-00019788

From: Richard Herrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is not in the public interest because 
individuals and open source software projects are exempted from 
access to documentation given to corporations, and there is no 
meaningful mechanism preventing further consumer lock in with 
proprietary file formats.
    Regards,
    Richard Herrell



MTC-00019789

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    hi my name is james luther i am disabled and use the internet 
and computers all day long, i live computers and i must say leave 
Bill Gates and Microsoft alone. Bill Gates is a pioneer and should 
be honored for his achievements, he produces the best product bar 
none. has given mucho money to charitable organiztions, employed 
thousands and made computers accessiable to every moron who can 
afford one and other morons who couldnt i might add. The man is a 
inventor and true business leader, he should be encouraged to 
continue on in his tasks, his company and there ideals exemptify 
whats right with this country, not wrong. If anyone cant compete 
with him is it really his fault? 


[[Page 26779]]


let this guy go and encourage him 
to work on some of the worlds problems hell he is the 
smartest(excluding myself of course)man in the usa, hell he ougth to 
run for president, id vote for him. good luck bill stick it to those 
dumb ass beaucrats. best of luck and i hope you make another 70 
billion. captialism rules.
    Bill Gates for president
    james luther, i use to pay taxes before i became disabled
    540-673-5255



MTC-00019790

From: Richard Herrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is not in the public interest because 
its terms allow Microsoft to exclude open source software projects 
such as SAMBA, Apahe, and OpenOffice.org from technical details of 
Microsoft implementations, allowing Microsoft to continue to benefit 
from it's illegally obtained and maintained monopoly on both client 
operating systems as well as web browsers. (Section J. 2. Paragraph 
c ``meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business''. A fair settlement would ensure that open source 
projects have resonable access to Microsoft protocols.
    SAMBA, the most significant competiting implementation of 
Microsoft's file sharing and authentication protocol.
    Open Office (the basis for Star Office, the most vigorous 
competitor to Microsoft Office) will likely face significant hurdles 
in obtaining data on newer Microsoft file formats.
    The settlement has been characterized as full of large holes, 
confusing, subject to manipulation,
    Analysis of the Microsoft Settlement from a Samba perspective 
http://lwn.net/2001/1108/a/samba-ms.php3
    He's Not in It for the Profit http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Why competitors are largely quiet on Microsoft settlement http:/
/www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/tech/049642.htm
    Washington Post: U.S. Settlement Leaves Microsoft More 
Entrenched http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
 dyn?pagename=article &node=&contentId=A2 
2-2001Nov8
    Thoughts on the Microsoft Settlement by Tim O'Reilly http://
www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/wlg/808
    Microsoft decision questioned http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/12/
technology/microsoft/



MTC-00019791

From: R.C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has to be the the worst settlement in our history for the 
end user, ie me et al. Microsoft has conned some poor judge who has 
No Idea of what Microsoft is capable of. Break them up, soon, and 
keep them Apart.
    R.C.Johnston
    7674 Rotherton Way
    Sacramento CA 95823



MTC-00019793

From: John Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I am writing to express my strong disagreement with the proposed 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement.
    I am a computer systems specialist with almost 30 years in the 
field. I have work with virtually every major system including 
Microsoft's. While there are many points I disagree with, the most 
glaring is the proposed oversight group. This proposed group would 
have no binding powers, legal or otherwise, over any of Microsoft's 
actions. It seems unthinkable to me that anyone would believe that 
this oversight group is an appropriate remedy. Microsoft will not 
heed the groups recommendations, Microsoft does not heed the 
mandates of congress! I see this proposed remedy as vacuous and no 
remedy at all. While Microsoft damaging the computer industry is one 
thing, I worry that Microsoft will enter into other industries and 
continue its strong handed tactics. I fear a financial industry 
dominated by Microsoft.
    Regards,
    John Harris



MTC-00019794

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is a bad idea.
    Glen Cornell
    1428 Buckingham Rd
    Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230



MTC-00019795

From: Dave Erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea because it does 
little to restore competition to the marketplace.
    Thank you. -
    Dave Erickson
    (http://www.rightwithgod.org)



MTC-00019796

From: Lee Neeley
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lee Neeley
    4319 Pescado Way
    Reno, NV 89502-4978
    January 23, 2002 Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    I firmly believe the federal government should have broken up 
Microsoft. This case should be pursued to ensure that Microsoft does 
not continue it's actions of suppressing competition and eliminating 
competitors by unfair means. Competition means creating better goods 
and offering superior services to consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Lee F. Neeley



MTC-00019797

From: Larry Bodden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am both a user of Microsoft and Apple Computer products. I 
regard myself as a very proficient user that keeps up with the 
latest technology on a daily basis. After reviewing the proposed 
settlement, I am discouraged to see that the Justice Department has 
taken such a lenient stance in regards to the proposed settlement. I 
believe that harsher punishments are necessary and are justified 
considering that Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly by two 
courts.
    Larry Bodden



MTC-00019798

From: Chris Beelby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As I look over the details of the Microsoft Anti-trust case I am 
amazed at what Microsoft has been able to get away with over the 
years. I must admit that at first I thought the whole idea of 
Microsoft having a monopoly was ludicrous but the more I have read 
and thought about it the clearer it has become that Microsoft does 
not only have a monopoly but has used that monopoly to further the 
monopoly. One of the tactics that Microsoft uses (and many companies 
use) to perpetuate this monopoly is through the use of 
``secret'', ``proprietary'' or 
``copyrighted'' software, file formats, protocols, and the 
like. To better understand this think of how the Internet has grown 
so exponentially over the past few years. A major reason that the 
Internet was able to grow was because of its openness (in software, 
file formats, protocols and the like). Standards for communicating 
between nodes and in published documentation on how to use 
technologies such as HTML and Email. Email protocol (and all related 
protocols which allow me to send and receive messages to someone 
like you) are all open to everyone. By that I mean that anyone who 
wants to know how something like email works can know how by looking 
up information on it. They can use that information to develop their 
own software to send a receive messages so that they are not forced 
to use the software of any one company. Their program will work with 
other email programs because they are all using open, accepted, 
standardized protocols and rules. At an even more basic level the 
TCP/ IP (Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol ) which 
is what allows all the millions of computers connected to the 
internet to locate and send data between each other is an open 
standard. If any one company had complete control over something 
like TCP/IP they would control the entire internet as we know it. 
Not only that but they could then use that control (through things 
like copyright and patent) to make it so that anyone else trying to 


[[Page 26780]]


implement the same standard or communicate with them would not be 
able to.
    Having open documentation on how things work allows different 
people or companies to all use those methods equally and does not 
lock them into any one companies proprietary software or methods of 
doing things. For example this message is sent to you in plain-text. 
You can read it using any program that understands the American 
Standard Code for Information Interchange. Since ASCII is open 
anyone can exchange information using it and no one can prevent 
someone else from using it. This is basically what I am meaning by 
openness in this letter (the ability of anyone to find information 
on how to use a technology and the inability of anyone else to 
prevent someone else from using that information however they like). 
If I were to send you a message in a Microsoft format such as 
Microsoft Word (.DOC) you would be forced to use a Microsoft product 
to read that message because it is encoded using a proprietary 
format. No other company can make a product that can read a DOC file 
because it is Microsoft's proprietary format and it is protected by 
Microsoft's copyrights and patents (which is unethical). If
    Microsoft were forced to make open things like it's proprietary 
word DOC format it would allow others to read their documents and 
thus not force Microsoft's own software on people. Software 
developers (other than those employed by Microsoft) could write an 
email client that could read email messages sent in the Microsoft 
DOC format. This is just one small example of how using 
``proprietary'', ``undocumented'' , 
``secret'' formats and protocols helps to perpetuate a 
monopoly.
    Open source software is a buzz word that has come up recently 
and is gaining much popularity. Open source developed software has 
been proven to work just as well if not better than proprietary 
``secret'' software (despite what Microsoft would like us 
to think). The key to ``openness'' is preventing any one 
entity from being able to completely control a resource, technology, 
or protocol. Microsoft should be forced to take action which will 
make all their ``proprietary'', ``secret'' 
information open to everyone so that anyone can develop software to 
effectively work with Microsoft products. Once people are no longer 
forced to use Microsoft products they can begin to make more free 
choices as to things like which operating system software they 
really want to use.
    Christopher Mark Beelby
    1314 Clover
    South Bend, IN 46615
    (219) 532-1354



MTC-00019799

From: Daniel J. Cody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Case
    It is my belief that a very strong set of rules must be placed 
on convicted monopolists like Microsoft to insure that they are 
unable to continue their illegal activities and the proposed 
settlement doesn't do that.
    Daniel Cody



MTC-00019800

From: Ted Killmeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I am a computer professional and citizen of the United States of 
America. I must comment on this settlement. In a word it is 
``Unsound''. Why do I say this, because as most of my 
colleagues can attest too, we have grown up under the 
``Microsoft Era'' and where as they did initially a lot of 
good for the computer industry (must give the devil his due) They, 
for the past 10 or so year, have used their financial position and 
any other means at their disposal to kill any and all competition. 
this remedy will not stop this. They have a culture (since they live 
and work in campuses) that is soaked up by each employee and will 
not be very easy to change. This mirrors the culture that the 
military has and that has proven to be almost impossible to change, 
as seen by the repeated abuses of women and other minorities with in 
the military. The consequences for Microsofts actions must be much 
more severe, or nothing will be changed in their business practices.
    Yours,
    Ted Killmeyer



MTC-00019801

From: Matt Fago
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    I hope that the DOJ starts to take this case seriously again and 
assign punishment commensurate with the crime. A crime WAS committed 
here, but too many lawmakers own MS stock to do anything about the 
case. The proposed ``settlement'' was little more than a 
party-invitation to Bill Gates. A free market is one thing, criminal 
sales and licensing practices are another.
    If you cannot split MS up, find an alternative punishment that 
will have some effect on the company. Like forcing them to release 
the source code under the BSD license.
    Matt Fago



MTC-00019802

From: Richard Namon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US Dept. of Justice:
    I cannot understand how the remedies in proposed Final Judgement 
will fully offset or cure those Findings Of Fact by Judge Jackson 
confirmed by the Appellate Court. I think that many of current 
Microsoft product flaws are the result of complacency resulting from 
Microsoft's monopolistic operation. Without actually reducing the 
strength of this already too large monopoly, the punishment will 
fall short of the crime. There are alternatives to splitting up 
Microsoft in the fashion of AT&T, but they would have to 
significantly weaken Microsoft's market dominance for the settlement 
to be fair to the public. Anything, it appears, that Microsoft will 
agree to out of court, will not accomplish that goal. I hope an 
impartial Judge will do better than the proposed Final Judgement.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
    Richard Namon



MTC-00019803

From: Linda Laubenheimer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments:
    The proposed final judgment is inadequate, and contains 
loopholes big enough to drive a monopoly through. I urge you to 
demand stricter penalties and broaden the scope of the limitations 
on Microsoft's predatory pricing, FUD, and non-disclosure of 
technical interoperability requirements. Any and all APIs, ActiveX, 
and other OS ``hooks'' and interoperability features 
should be disclosed to the public on the first beta release of any 
version of their OS, and then the disclosure should be maintained 
accurately for the duration of the product life cycle. Specific 
Criticisms:
    ``AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any 
admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;''
    The findings of fact concluded that Microsoft is a monopoly. The 
settlement should not allow them to wriggle out of it.
    ``2.that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails 
to implement a reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement 
to be able to host a particular ActiveX control) that is necessary 
for valid technical reasons to supply the end user with 
functionality consistent with a Windows Operating System Product, 
provided that the technical reasons are described in a reasonably 
prompt manner to any ISV that requests them.''
    This clause allows Microsoft to re-engineer and change their 
products so that third party software will no longer interoperate, 
thus forcing the user back to the Microsoft ``fold''. This 
is a bad idea. Also, it apparently only applies to 
``ISV''s, which leaves out the rest of the software 
developing business. Very bad.
    ``c.Microsoft shall have 30 days after receiving a 
complaint to attempt to resolve it or reject it, and will then 
promptly advise the TC of the nature of the complaint and its 
disposition.''
    :==This is rather toothless and vague, allowing Microsoft to 
simply reject complaints and tell the TC to buzz off.
    ``d.No work product, findings or recommendations by the TC 
may be admitted in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for 
any purpose, and no member of the TC shall testify by deposition, in 
court or before any other tribunal regarding any matter related to 
this Final Judgment.
    ``:== This reads like `if it goes before the TC, it 
can be buried there by Microsoft'



MTC-00019804

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I have been stewing over this matter for some time now, and feel 
I need to speak out. I am a computer user (obviously) who in fact 



[[Page 26781]]


resides in the same State as the microsoft corporation. While I 
realize that microsoft does well for the economy of Washington, it 
disgusts me in the way that they have accomplished this. Perhaps 
even accomplished this to the detriment of the Nation as a whole.
    The fact is; that the Court of Appeals has indeed held that 
microsoft is a monopoly, and did violate antitrust laws. Without 
strenuous recourse they will continue to do so, and in doing so will 
stifle anything that they see as a threat to their continued 
monopoly.
    The agreement between the Department of Justice and 9 of the 
States that filed suit seems woefully inadequate to address the 
crimes that microsoft has commited, and as such, I feel it should be 
nullified. In fact, there should be an immediate start of a penalty 
phase, with no further delays.
    I dare anyone involved in this case to go out and purchase the 
latest copy of microsoft winxp, load it onto their home machine, and 
see if your blood does not start to boil as a result of the 
arrogance that microsoft thinks I should let my machine become 
basically a piece of spyware!  I removed this from my 
system, and will no longer run anything at all microsoft related, it 
is none of their business what hardware I own!
    Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
    Sean M. O'Grady
    Believe me when I say that
    -
    ``My God, It is full of stars'' -David Bowman



MTC-00019805

From: Haley Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge,
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the Proposed Final 
Judgement. Microsoft is clearly in the wrong and is detrimental and 
dangerous to the free market economy that our country depends on for 
its economical success and prominence. I believe that PFJ is not a 
suitable solution because it does not provide the means of 
enforcement that would be necessary in order for a remedy like this 
to actually be effective. Thank you. Haley Thompson 701 West 32nd 
Street #17 Los Angeles, CA 90007 
CC:microsoftcomments@ doj.ca.gov@inetgw



MTC-00019806

From: KaHa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen, I am adding my voice to a plea to preserve 
digital Freedom for us all. If Microsoft Corporation is not 
effectively brought to heel, they will use their monopoly on desktop 
computer operating systems to turn the internet, which has always 
been based on Free and Open standards, into a Microsoft owned and 
operated tollroad. Please do not allow this to happen. Those of us 
who value Freedom (as opposed to Microsoft's ``Freedom to 
Innovate'' parody of the word) are fervently hoping that you 
will see the harm that will come of allowing this bully and predator 
continue with its tactics. Imagine if we all were forced to drive 
Ford automobiles, because Ford owns the roads, and designed them so 
that Chevrolets, Toyotas and Volvos could not use them.
    ``Comply, Purchase Windows and Be Happy-or Start 
Walking'' is a much more accurate slogan than: ``Where Do 
You Want To Go Today?''.
    Sincerely,
    Karl H. Jackson Prineville, OR, USA
    [email protected]



MTC-00019807

From: Tony Mizukami
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I would like to make my comments as a US citizen as part of the 
Tunney Act proceedings in the antitrust case against Microsoft.
    I think that the proposed settlement as it stands is NOT an 
effective way to break the monopoly held by Microsoft, and for any 
meaningful antitrust action against Microsoft that settlement must 
be REJECTED.
    Thank you,
    Tony Mizukami



MTC-00019808

From: Hollis Scarbrough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
leben_N?21525 Dawn Hill East Road Siloam Springs, AR 72761
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to express my appreciation to both the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft for reaching a settlement of the antitrust 
lawsuit. Throughout the three years that this suit has been pending, 
the complaint I heard most frequently voiced by consumers was their 
lack of choice in Internet providers when they used Microsoft's 
Windows operating systems in their computers. As I understand the 
settlement, Microsoft has agreed to allow its Windows systems to be 
reconfigured so as to allow competition from non-Microsoft products, 
including the Internet access software. This is very much a pro-
consumer settlement.
    Obviously many of Microsoft's competitors will continue to push 
for further concessions from and punishment of Microsoft, but I hope 
that you continue to remember that it is the consumers that you are 
obligated to protect.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the 
box. No, there isn't room, the ambiguity's put on weight.<> 
``'' `` ````''
    Sincerely,
    Alice Scarbrough



MTC-00019809

From: kasi greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45pm
Subject: Micorosoft Settlement



MTC-00019809-0001

    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I ask you to vote against the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft suit. This proposed final judgement is harmful to the 
American public as it allows a monopolist to continue his illegal 
activities. Every court has found Microsoft to have violated anit-
trust laws, thereby reaping many billions of dollars of profits. 
However, this settlement allows the compant to keep virtually all of 
that!
    Please reject the proposed final judgement which only serves to 
benefit Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Kasi M. Greene
    00019809-0002



MTC-00019810

From: Wheat, Mitch
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Talk about bowing to Microsoft.
    So what exactly was the point of the court case in the first 
place? And exactly how does this weak, Pro-Microsoft settlement 
reduce their predatory monopolistic practices ???
    This settlement gives the green light to Microsoft to go ahead 
and carry on intimating anyone who attempts to compete with them. 
The American people should be ashamed.
    Mitch Wheat.



MTC-00019811

From: RedM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    While I cannot claim to be a legal expert I do claim to be an 
expert consumer (proof sent upon request). As an expert consumer I 
know that a) more choice is preferred over less choice. I also know 
that b) competition improves the breed. Given these facts let's 
apply them to the current state of the desktop operating system 
marketplace.
    1) A walk through any retail store which even pretends to offer 
anything remotely related to a home computer reveals that whatever 
it is they're selling is only offered for Windows. This stands in 
direct opposition to fact a) above.
    2) A current look at any of the security notices (www.cert.org, 
for example) shows a disproportionately large number of security 
alerts for Windows relative to other systems. This is brought about 
(I contend) by b) above. There is absolutely NO incentive for 
Microsoft to improve their product. What is their risk? The DoJ will 
provide job security for their legal staff? Solution: crank out some 
more junk code and sell it to their monopoly as an upgrade.
    Therefore, my recommendation is that the Antitrust Division of 
the Department of Justice simply do what is right...deliver justice 
by punishing a convicted monopolist in such a way as to improve a) 
and b) above.



[[Page 26782]]


    Thank you,
    Keith T. Allshouse
    44 Mansfield Street
    Everett, MA 02149-3636



MTC-00019812

From: Timothy N Tuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56pm
Subject: MicrosoftSettlement-dont sell out
    I dont run window, yet every laptop i have ever bought required 
me to pay the microsoft tax. No refund available nor do we have a 
choice in the matter, absolutely criminal behavior they embrace a 
standard, extend it, and destroy it. If microsoft had been around 
when darpa was funding the building of the internet, nothing would 
work because of what they do to standards. this alone is almost 
criminal behavior. If you bought a new stereo for your car and sold 
the car the new owner would have full rights to do whatever he 
wanted with it. with microsoft many people are forced by buy a 
duplicate license. cant do office upgrades without having the disks 
at hand, cant update the OS unless your using Internet Exploder, 
once its damaged you cant update your system any longer. They care 
more about profits than quality, they sell software that out of the 
box requires almost 50 meg of updates. again, criminal behavior, 
intentionally selling known defective goods. bust them up or open up 
the source code to the OS, its the only way to to level the playing 
field. they SHOULD definetly be required to build/license/ or port 
Office to other OS's suchs as Linux and Solaris. Dont you dare sell 
out the public and settle by letting Microsoft ``give away 
their crappy software'' to poor schools. require them to 
provide the funds for the schools to chose how they spend the money/ 
Schools and students shouldnt have to pay for software at all, it 
should be completely free to every school if they should want to run 
it. they sell windows 2000 professional for $300, yet it costs them 
mere dollars to pacakge, probably less than 10 bucks.
    Dont sell us out!!!!
    Tnt



MTC-00019813

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00019814

From: dvongsmith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:51pm
Subject: Comments on proposed settlement
Hello Justice Department,
    I strongly oppose your proposed anti-trust settlement with 
Microsoft.
    First: On the face of it, it would further extend their monopoly 
into a tiny niche of the market where Microsoft has traditionally 
been outsold (by Apple Computer): the nation's public school system. 
This prospect alone must bring cheer to Microsoft.
    Second: It does nothing to compensate consumers who have been 
harmed over the years by Microsoft's unlawful maintenance of their 
monopoly through the supression of competition. The monetary amount 
of the proposed settlement is a pittance compared to the 
disproportionately high prices consumers have had to pay for 
operating system software.
    Third: It fails to foster competition by allowing Microsoft to 
continue the practice of bundling applications to the exclusion of 
alternative consumer choices.
    Fourth and final: It fails to prevent Microsoft from subverting 
both competing software applications and industry-standard protocols 
through proprietary ``extensions'', for example the Java 
programming language, the XML Internet language, and through 
Microsoft's .Net and Passport initiatives.
    In conclusion, I hope the proposed settlement is discarded, and 
is instead replaced by a settlement that:
    1) significantly and materially recompenses past consumers, as 
through a free upgrade to an improved (stable, secure) operating 
system version,
    2) places strict and enforceable controls on Microsoft's 
monopoly power, as if it were an ``essential utility''; 
for example by making Microsoft's Application Program Interface 
(API) source code public, and
    3) separates Microsoft into a competitive ``Operating 
System'' business, and an ``Applications Program'' 
business.
    Your office is supposed to work for the public good! Don't do 
what would prompt the monopolists to raise champagne glasses in a 
toast to their good fortune. -
    Very truly yours,
    David V. Smith
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00019815

From: G F
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good Evening,
    I have always supported the US DOJ case against Microsoft 
Corporation.
    I've been a user of computers since 1984, and it is my belief 
that Microsoft has done more to stall progress that to help it. 
Please modify the settlement, it is too lax on Microsoft. Make 
Microsoft document their APIs to EVERY interested developer, and to 
document their proprietary file formats in Excel and the rest of 
Microsoft Office.
    The US computer industry stands to lose if the settlement stays 
the way it is.
    Thank you,
    Gabriel Freund



MTC-00019816

From: salem
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
76 Old Stage Road Westfield, MA 01085-5172
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 this letter to show my support for the settlement 
that has been reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. The antitrust suit was filed three years ago, and it has 
cost the government and Microsoft millions of dollars. Considering 
the fact that we are suffering through a recession, the settlement 
is the best thing that could have happened in the antitrust dispute.
    Although the lawsuit is now almost over, Microsoft did not get 
off easy. This settlement has teeth, and it looks like the biggest 
benefactor of the agreement will be a Microsoft's competitor. 
Microsoft has had to agree to document and disclose for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' 
operating system products. That move is a first in an antitrust 
settlement.
    I support the settlement since it puts an end to the litigation 
that has been hampering American innovation for the past three 
years.
    Sincerely,
    George Salem



MTC-00019817

From: Ray Aviles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To whom it may concern,
    I am opposed to the tentative settlement of the United States 
vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I don't see how Microsoft is being 
punished for abusing monopoly power. In my view, the company claims 
to be inovative by adding features to it's operating systems; in 
reality it is a way to crush the competition (or what little remains 
of it) into oblivion, since the applications and utilities that 
Microsoft bundles are typically the first that a user encounters. It 
doesn't prohibit the user from choosing a competitors software, but 
if it comes bundled with the operating system, chances are that the 
user will use it because it is already there. The tenative 
settlement would give Microsoft more leverage in which to force out 
the competition. The tentative settlement proposes that Microsoft 
provide schools with ``low-cost'' software. By providing 
the schools with the software and an exclusionary licensing 
agreement, Microsoft further builds it's user base. ``But 
Microsoft did have one other carrot to dangle: the Enterprise 
Agreement, which gives discounts on licensing-as much as 50 percent-
and automatically enrolls customers in SA (Software Assurance). But 
joining means CIOs must also sign a contract that bars them from 
using any competitive products.'' What better way of killing 
off the competition by preventing the schools from using any 
competitors software! This is, without a doubt the most devious 
attempt to undermine competition in this country. I again state my 
opposition to the tentative settlement of the United States vs. 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I believe that a better settlement 
would be as follows (found at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
microsoft-antitrust.html):
    ``Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of 
all interfaces between 

[[Page 26783]]


software components, all communications 
protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of Microsoft's 
favorite tactics:
    secret and incompatible interfaces.
    1.. To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not 
be allowed to use a nondisclosure agreement with some other 
organization to excuse implementing a secret interface. The rule 
must be: if they cannot publish the interface, they cannot release 
an implementation of it.
    It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin 
implementation of an interface before the publication of the 
interface specifications, provided that they release the 
specifications simultaneously with the implementation.
    Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other 
software developers complain that the published documentation fails 
to describe some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain 
job, the court would direct Microsoft to answer questions about it. 
Any questions about interfaces (as distinguished from implementation 
techniques) would have to be answered. Similar terms were included 
in an agreement between IBM and the European Community in 1984, 
settling another antitrust dispute. See http://www.cptech.org/at/
ibm/ibm1984ec.html.
    2.. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in 
the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to 
other fields, those other fields could be included in this 
requirement, or they could be exempt.) This would block the other 
tactic Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents 
to block development of free software. We should give Microsoft the 
option of using either self-defense or mutual defense. Self defense 
means offering to cross-license all patents at no charge with anyone 
who wishes to do so. Mutual defense means licensing all patents to a 
pool which anyone can join-even people who have no patents of 
their own. The pool would license all members'' patents to all 
members.
    It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does 
no good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed 
to work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it 
gives access to), such that the rest of us are not allowed to 
implement it.
    3.. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working 
with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete 
specifications have been published, so that any programmer can 
implement software to support the same hardware.
    Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's 
doing, but they are a significant obstacle for the development of 
the free operating systems that can provide competition for Windows. 
To remove this obstacle would be a great help. If a settlement is 
negotiated with Microsoft, including this sort of provision in it is 
not impossible-it would be a matter of negotiation.''
    Sincerely,
    Ramon R. Avilis
    1671 Timber Lane Dr.
    Montgomery, Illinois 60538



MTC-00019819

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a customer of both Microsoft and America Online, though for 
as long as I have used products from both, Microsoft's performance 
has far outweighed that of AOL.
    Considering browsers specifically, something that is very 
important because I deal with computer networking, security, and web 
design as a hobby I have found Internet Explorer to be a better 
product in every way. Not only does it support all of the latest 
features and innovations, but it is more stable and reliable. My 
pages are always rendered correctly by Internet Explorer, and are 
rarely tolerable in Navigator even when they strictly follow the 
latest W3C specifications.
    Navigator lacks decent support for style sheets, scripting, 
dynamic and extensible HTML documents and every web developer I know 
is beginning to turn away from any Netscape Navigator support at 
all.
    This is not an issue of Microsoft pushing a product simply 
because it is their own. This is an issue of Microsoft looking out 
for consumers and providing a service that any web savvy person 
should appreciate. Anti-Microsoft sentiments are at an all-time 
high, but we can't let those feelings block common sense or 
something that is apparent from brief observation.
    Thank you for taking the time and allowing me to share my views 
on this issue.
    John N. Cueto



MTC-00019820

From: Jim Barlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:57pm
Subject: microsoft anti trust



MTC-00019820-0001

    I just wanted to voice my opinon that microsoft's anti-
competitive practices are unethical and deserve punishment.
    Their outlook has crippled the software industry, making it 
difficult for quality products to survive.
    thank you,
    jim



MTC-00019821

From: John Sager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
3345 Newton Drive
Pensacola, FL 32503
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. It is very irritating 
that the government has drug out this issue for over three years. 
The suit was not warranted in the first place; now that a settlement 
has been reached it is time to put the issue to rest.
    Microsoft and the government have reached compromises on all of 
the major issues involved in this case.
    Microsoft has agreed to give computer makers the flexibility to 
install and promote any software that they see fit. They have also 
agreed to disclose to their competitors various interfaces that are 
internal to Window's operating system products, to make it easier 
for other software developers to make more compatible software. The 
issues have been settled and it is time for Microsoft, the industry 
and the government to all move on. The settlement is fair and should 
be accepted. It is time to end this government over regulation. 
Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Sager
    cc: Representative Jeff Miller



MTC-00019822

From: Eric Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Miller
    1410 Third Ave.
    Howell, Michigan 48843



MTC-00019823

From: Thomas Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft judgment is a bad idea. 
Among the many oversights of the proposed final judgment against 
Microsoft, I must state that Definition U of the proposed final 
judgment against Microsoft must be amended to read:
    U. ``Windows Operating System Product'' means any 
software or firmware code distributed commercially by Microsoft that 
is 


[[Page 26784]]


capable of executing any subset of the Win32 APIs, including 
without exclusion Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, 
Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, 
PocketPC 2002, and successors to the foregoing, including the 
products currently code named ``Longhorn'' and 
``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades, 
bug fixes, service packs, etc. This would close a loop-hole by which 
Microsoft could merely rename a future product, continuing it 
current practices (as ruled by the court) of unfair competition.
    Microsoft may expend a great deal of time, expense, and effort 
to the contrary, but justice must prevail.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas M. Ross
    3302 Hunter Ave.
    Royal Oak, Michigan, 48073



MTC-00019824

From: Philip W. Faulconer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Philip W. Faulconer



MTC-00019825

From: Ted Cushman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:57pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement of Microsoft Antitrust Case
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to object to the settlement proposed by the 
government to settle the Microsoft case. The order does no more than 
to repeat in specific detail the general prohibitions contained in 
the laws that Microsoft has already broken. There is no reason to 
have confidence that Microsoft will comply with this order any more 
than it has complied in the past with the law that the order merely 
restates with greater specificity. The listing of certain illegal 
practices from which the company ``shall'' now refrain is 
not necessary for the court to put its name to if Microsoft intends 
to obey the law, and is of no use if Microsoft does not.
    Microsoft has repeatedly, publicly, and in the strongest terms 
defended its past conduct as legal, moral, and even beneficial. It 
has not been punished in any significant way for previous violations 
of court orders or of the law. This settlement does not impose any 
penalty on Microsoft either. So Microsoft has neither an internal 
motivation to obey the order, nor has it any reason to associate 
such a violation with significant costs to itself. This order in 
essence tells Microsoft that it can violate the law with impunity. 
The settlement is feeble. The mechanism suggested to accomplish (I 
will not say ``enforce'') the putative aim of the 
settlement-to wit, a small board of overseers- would be 
largely if not wholly ineffective. While I do not believe that 
Microsoft's management team has any great claim to be excellent 
creators of software, there is little doubt that they are highly 
capable and effective business managers and strategists. The company 
will be able to outfox the overseers with ease, if indeed the 
overseers are not co-opted before the game even begins. It will be 
like taking candy from a baby. The settlement is unworkable.
    I was prompted to contribute this comment when I noticed an 
appeal posted by a contributor to the Slashdot internet site, a 
gathering place for the digitally gifted younger set (especially 
those who have a liking for Linux, a freely distributed alternative 
operating system). I'm not a Linux fan myself, or even a computer 
freak; I'm a writer who mostly uses the Mac. However, I spend time 
occasionally browsing the Slashdot site, if only to keep myself 
humble by noticing the depth of my own ignorance. It's the same 
curiosity that leads me to read medical journals and other technical 
matter. Now, unlike most Americans, or (as Microsoft has been fond 
of pointing out) most law enforcement personnel and most federal 
judges, the population that posts to Slashdot is very, very, very 
computer-savvy. These are people who customize their operating 
systems, or even create operating systems, and who manage large 
complex networks of computers. My casual reading of the site 
indicates to me that the vast majority of that highly technical 
subculture believes implicitly that Microsoft is a monopoly, that 
Microsoft abuses its monopoly power, and that the abuse by Microsoft 
of its monopoly power is damaging to those with less power, a 
category of victims that includes computer users as well as 
companies unfortunate enough to be recognized by Microsoft as 
potential competitors. This population also dismisses as unworthy of 
consideration the notion that a panel of overseers will be able to 
significantly alter Microsoft's behavior, and would laugh if it 
didn't hurt at the notion that Microsoft might moderate its 
anticompetitive practices of the company's own volition. That group 
of computer users-that highly knowledgeable community, whose 
opinions are representative of the many citizens who would benefit 
directly from a fair chance for the competitors of 
Microsoft-mostly believes that the government's proposed 
settlement is a politically motivated sellout. The court may or may 
not care whether its decision in this case is accepted as fair by 
the populations of technical computer users most affected by the 
outcome of the Microsoft case. But many distinguished judges have, I 
gather, felt that achieving a perception of fairness among the 
public is an important aspect of the jurist's craft. I urge the 
court to consider the implications of endorsing a settlement that is 
perceived on its face by the computer software community as a cave-
in by the government and a free walk for the violator. The 
settlement lacks legitimacy.
    I will tell you what I favor. I favor the breaking up of 
Microsoft. It worked with the oil trusts, with the steel monopolies, 
with the railroad trusts, and with the telephone monopoly. I am sure 
that in fact, judges do not understand software. Nor should they 
have to, nor do I believe that judges are deeply knowledgeable about 
drilling, refining, and distributing oil, or mining, smelting and 
fabricating steel, or building and managing a telephone network or a 
railroad. (Computers, after all, are not the only tough technical 
terrain on the planet.) But judges have broken up companies in all 
those industries. Heck, my wife is a doctor; she has spent years and 
years training for it. But if she's sued for malpractice, the case 
will be heard by a judge who may have never sprayed Bactine on a 
blister. And that's okay. Microsoft, for their part, does not 
understand the law; somebody needs to handle that bit for them.
    Look, if I had been married five times, and I had killed the 
first four wives with an axe, you might not lock me up; you might 
even leave me living with the fifth wife. But would you let me keep 
the axe? Microsoft is an unrepentant violator of the law. You can't 
explain to them nicely what the law means, get them to promise 
scout's honor, and then drop by twice a week to make sure 
everything's going fine. They are not going to stop doing what they 
do until they are unable to do it. And the only way to make that 
happen is to take away the monopoly power. Then they can do what 
they love to do-go for the throat-and not have to take 
any guff about it.
    Microsoft likes to talk about how competitive the software 
market is, what a rough world it is, and how they have to be 
constantly on their toes. And it's true. But Microsoft has never had 
one experience the rest of the software world has had. Microsoft has 
never gotten to compete against Microsoft. The court should give 
them the chance.
    Sincerely,
    Theodore T. Cushman

[[Page 26785]]



    6 Pleasant Court
    Great Barrington, MA 01230
    [email protected]
    413/644-8928



MTC-00019826

From: Nick K. Aghazarian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please reconsider the acceptance of the proposed judgement. The 
states'' solution, while not perfect, is much closer to a fair 
and effective solution. I do not feel that any particular piece of 
software from Microsoft should be singled out, with the possible 
exception of the Office file formats. If these formats were made 
public and made to stay that way, competing products could (and 
would) emerge, enabling the more widespread use of competing 
operating systems. Currently, businesses are forced into one of the 
two monopolies (Operating System or Office Suite) by the other. If 
you want to correspond with your customers, you must use MS Office 
to read the documents. In order to run MS Office, you must run MS 
Windows. This should not be allowed to continue. At the very 
minimum, the determination of who should and should not be granted 
access to the Windows APIs must not be left to the owner of those 
APIs. For the most benefit to the public, those APIs should be made 
public and alternative implementations encouraged.
    Thank you,
    Nick K. Aghazarian
    Windows Software Engineer
    Stockton, CA 95219

MTC-00019827

From: Mike Creighton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Creighton



MTC-00019828

From: Louis Shanks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't think that anyone should be penalized for wanting to be 
number one. If that was the case you need to put AOL (America 
Online) on your chopping block next. AOL is more of a monopoly than 
Microsoft is. Microsoft has been a good corporate citizen and I 
think the original penalty is more than enough punishment. In 
economic times like we are facing would it be wise to try to break 
an American company to the point they will need to follow the same 
path as many other American companies and start laying off people, 
buying fewer and fewer services from smaller companies causing them 
to go out of business completely? I say stick with the original 
penalties and lets let everyone get back on track.
    Thank You,
    Louis
    In Texas



MTC-00019829

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have, just now, personally reviewed the documents related to 
the settlement available from http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm and am sufficiently concerned to comment (it's not clear 
how I can convey how significant that is).
    I deeply concerned about the proposed settlement of the 
antitrust litigation between the US and Microsoft (Civil Action No. 
98-1232). I must rely on the attorneys general to negotiate 
this in my best interest (as a consumer who's never, in my 10 years 
as a consumer of computing hardware, had a choice of operating 
system from a PC vendor) yet I'm convinced the settlement will do 
very little to improve competition.
    In just a few minutes of perusing the proposed settlement I 
found the following paragraph in section VI Definitions subsection 
J: ``Software code described as part of, and distributed 
separately to update, a Microsoft Middleware Product shall not be 
deemed Microsoft Middleware unless identified as a new major version 
of that Microsoft Middleware Product. A major version shall be 
identified by a whole number or by a number with just a single digit 
to the right of the decimal point. ``
    Does that mean that IE5.0.0 is different from IE5.0? 
``Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets as being 
part of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as a service pack, 
upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a version of 
a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), 
shall be considered to be part of that Microsoft Middleware Product. 
``
    The way I read that, is that anything not explicitly labeled as 
a MMP in the settlement is not an MMP unless Microsoft wants it to 
be. I suspect there are other things that Microsoft doesn't want to 
be labeled MMPs. Poking around the web, I found what I feel is some 
very insightful and constructive commentary at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html. It offers suggestions, whereas all I've had 
time to do is criticize :( Please give my thanks to those who are 
working the case on behalf of the consumers. I realize there must be 
enormous pressures.
    thank you for your time,
    Jeff Warrington



MTC-00019830

From: John Gregg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    john gregg
    St. Paul, MN



MTC-00019831

From: Wynn Winkler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:58pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I am another taxpaying, US Citizen who thinks the proposed 
Microsoft settlement is a scandal, a deal purchased with campaign 
contributions, and another demonstration that enough money can make 
the justice system dance like a puppet. I'm just sending this to be 
counted-all the arguments have been made in detail by much 
better analysts than myself and I'm sure you have no difficulty 
finding them. I'll stop there.
    Wynn H. Winkler
    3005 Ronna Ave.
    Las Cruces, NM 88001 (There that should save the FBI a little 
time. )



MTC-00019832

From: George Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appalled that the proposed settlement even exists. It fails 
to provide any adequate safeguard for consumers and competitors. 
Microsoft has, as has been shown by their history, ignored any and 
all rules or regulations that they felt infringed on their strategic 
plans. The 1985 agreement was ineffective, and something much more 
stringent and specific is necessary. Along with this, there must be 
a mechanism to check and enforce it.
    Microsoft has put all of its legal, political, and monetary 
might behind its current efforts to derail any efforts to level the 
playing field. The number of telephone and email solicitations from 
Microsoft supported groups has been tremendous, and shows just how 
much Microsoft is trying to manipulate the system.
    Please don't allow Microsoft to corrupt the process. Their 
practices have been deemed illegal, and it is now time to ensure 
that those practices stop, and that those who have been harmed are 
given reparations.
    George Wagner
    Computers, Support, & Consulting


[[Page 26786]]


    6015 Glenbeigh Drive
    Sylvania, OH 43560
    (419) 882-0472



MTC-00019833

From: s.berens
To: Microsoft ATR, dave,Eric Weis,Dolores Von Urff,ge.j...
Date: 1/23/02 11:01 pm
Subject: The Tunney Act. Microsoft Settelment Rejection Notice
    Monday, January 28, 2002
    This is the deadline for comments on the Microsoft Settelment 
from the public
    Now as some of you know I am not one for ``chain 
letters'' but this time I can't think of a better way of 
getting a good volume of mail generated in a short peroid of time.
    The Proposed Microsoft settelment is a failure. This is 
according to nearly all the anaylsis by lawyers, industry advocates, 
and anyone involved in the case. The DOJ needs to hear from the 
people in the public comment peroid to let them know that it is not 
enough, and time is almost out. Let your voice be heard.
    Remember it is the number of email the DOJ gets that counts, so 
lets generate some traffic on their mail servers. Just follow the 
instructions below.
    1) Please forward this to [email protected]
    2) Forward this to everyone you know and get them to do the 
same.
    Thank you for your time
    Stephen Berens
    Founder of the Western Alliance
    Form letter follows
    Open Letter DoD Re: Microsft Settlement
    If you'd like to co-sign this open letter, please email me at 
petitionOkegel.com, and please give your city, state, title, and 
affiliation.
    -Dan Kegel

    To'' [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
 Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, we wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. We agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
    *The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
-Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry. by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    -The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions 
and Provisions o The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its 
secret APIs. but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered.
    -The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    -The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft. NET 
with competing middleware.
    -The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but 
it defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box- 
operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are advertized as 
being ``Windows Powered''.
    -The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    -The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation 
to ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only 
after the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware 
is compatible.
    -The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    -The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release 
documentation about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    -The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    -The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft P-Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on 
Windows.
    -Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to 
keep Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    -Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system- 
even for computers running competing operating systems such as 
Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 
consent decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    -Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    -The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs
    -The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    -The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems- who ship competing software.
    -The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows 
(MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or 
Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on 
Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share in 
other areas.
    -The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    We also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest.
    It should not be adopted without substantial revision to address 
these problems.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00019834

From: Gene Bland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen and Gentlewomen,
    Concerning the proposed settlement for Microsoft, I wish to 
express that the intended remedies seem to only address past and 
current technologies and do not truly deplete nor deter the 
monopolistic policies that Microsoft has engaged in over the last 
several years. The language within the document references specific 
software titles and technologies, many of which are no longer 
supported. Terminology (such as ``ActiveX'') is frequently 
changing and to expressly mention such items seems unduly 
restrictive for the settlement and easy to avoid by Microsoft.
    Also, the remedies for exposing existing and proposed interfaces 
and APIs is expressed in terms of a delivery mechanism that 
Microsoft owns (the Microsoft Developers Network). This requires 
third party developers to set up a relationship (joining the 
developers network) to be able to access this information in a 
timely fashion. This requirement seems to create greater dependency 
upon Microsoft, in fact enhancing their monopoly position, rather 
than depleting it. This information should be available in a 
publicly (non-Microsoft controlled or owned) available facility.
    Lastly, there is no mention of any form of restitution for the 
activities that Microsoft has engaged in. Microsoft's activities 
have destroyed many small companies, and worse, the people's dreams 
and livelihood who made up those companies. This is, in a true 
sense, the destruction of what most of us consider to be ``The 
American Way and Dream'' where we all have the right to compete 
without fear of the unfair destruction by a monopoly. This activity 
by Microsoft should be considered an extreme offense and the 
punishment should be commensurate with that offense. I was actually 
quite offended by the several references to provisions to protect 
Microsoft's existing licenses, without any mention of restitution 
for Microsoft's victims.
    Thank you for your attention.
    D. Gene Bland, Jr.
    Cary, North Carolina
    Software Development Consultant for Analyst International



MTC-00019835

From: Emily A. Carl


[[Page 26787]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:39pm
Subject: Concern about Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Emily Carl.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019836

From: yeled@vulcanised. adc.rmit.edu.au@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is unworthy of such a 
large interest to the people of America, and (including me) the rest 
of the world, that Microsoft has impacted.-
    [email protected]
    Melbourne, Australia
    http://rubberduck.com/ PGP preferred



MTC-00019837

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea!



MTC-00019838

From: Krishna Sethuraman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement. As a computer 
professional, I find Microsoft's behavior to be anti-competitive in 
the marketplace, and must be stopped. The proposed settlement does 
not appear to do this effectively.
    Krishna Sethuraman
    Sunnyvale, CA



MTC-00019839

From: Daniel Rodney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am a concerned computer user. I teach computer graphics 
software in fact. I am very familiar with Macs and Windows and want 
to express my concern about the strength of the decision about 
Microsoft. I feel that they have severely hurt and continue to hurt 
the computer industry. I think that their practices continue to hurt 
users and only are chosen because they can expand MS's monopoly. 
Take the WindowXP activation system. Users are not helped by this... 
their computers can be rendered useless if activation can't properly 
take place. Also, that Windows XP leaves out Java support, unless 
the user downloads it, is purely a MS tactic to edge out Java 
because it's not theirs. Sure it doesn't specifically attack it 
since it's POSSIBLE to use Java, but the problem is that many users 
don't know they should, or how to, so in the end, the ignorant user 
is hurt and for what good? So that MS can better push their own 
solution? The user is hurt because Java is a great platform 
INDEPENDENT choice. While I don't know that much about the 
settlement, please understand that it could not be too harsh on MS 
in my opinion. MS needs to be penalized for their past practices and 
current. They need to be stopped or I fear for how computers are 
heading because of their self serving choices.
    Ultimately this is a decision that affects everyone's daily life 
in some way. Computers run our life... and when a moralless self 
serving computer company that will do ANYTHING is can get away with 
is running the show... it's a scary thing. Please do the right thing 
and STOP them once and for all. Prevent them from continuing to do 
it and make sure they pay for their past bad practices.
    Dan
    Daniel Rodney-graphic designer, instructor
    http://www.danrodney.com
    h: 718-956-5755



MTC-00019840

From: Noah L. Waller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:04pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    In my reading of the information available on this case, I 
believe it would be a terrible injustice to our justice system and 
the ethics of our country if the Microsoft vs. DOJ case was settled 
in this currently proposed way. My reasons are simple:
    1. For a company to be found as guilty as Microsoft has been 
found, based on the initial proposed sentence, and whose actions 
since have been nothing short of arrogant, it would make a mockery 
of DOJ to accept such a pathetically weak settlement.
    2. More important, past history has shown this company will push 
the envelope of any reached settlement, it's expected it would 
continue to do so. The large number of anti-trust cases brought 
against this company cost tax dollars, not finding an ultimate 
solution is a bad investment, and it would not be long until we 
could find ourselves, as consumers and tax payers, footing the bill 
for a job left unfinished. More information can be found here: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
    I am not in the legal field, I'm in health care. I do not have a 
solution to offer other than saying the one we have now is not 
enough, not by far.
    Thank you for your time. -
    Noah L. Waller
    http://home.sprintmail.com/noahw/



MTC-00019841

From: David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:06pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully make reparations for the actions committed by Microsoft in 
the past, nor make it difficult for them to commit similar actions 
in the future.
    None of the settlement provisions will keep Microsoft from 
abusing its current monopoly position in the operating system 
market. This is important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's 
track record.
    Most importantly, the proposed settlement doesn't correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that redress 
their previous monopolistic abuses. Why is this? They only (attempt 
to) prohibit the future repetition of those abuses, which is 
puzzling in itself.
    The MicroSoft antitrust settlement goes against everything the 
law stands for. If a person or organization is able to commit 
crimes, benefit from those crimes, and then receive, as a 
``punishment'', merely instructions that they cannot 
commit those crimes again, they have still benefited from them. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses nor for 
Americans in general, and I find it personally appalling that no 
substantial monetary penalty has been considered.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is 
honorable, it is wrong to reach a settlement, just for settlement's 
sake, especially with a company that still refuses to admit 
wrongdoing.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    David Barbara Jr.
    Chico, California



MTC-00019842

From: Michael Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've just recently taken the time to research the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, after hearing a great deal of negative 
comment, and I am quite sorry to say that the settlement is even 
more flawed than I had imagined possible. I realize that Mr. 
Ashcroft may even *believe* his statement that this settlement is 
not a sell-out, but to give him the benefit of that doubt, I am 
forced to assume that Mr. Ashcroft has no conception whatsoever of 
the actual problems involved in this case. Last time the DoJ tangled 
with Microsoft, you 


[[Page 26788]]


brought out a settlement which was far too 
restricted, in the sense that it enumerated specific activities from 
which Microsoft was prohibited, and allowed Microsoft to pursue any 
number of closely related but legally separate anti-competitive 
behaviors-which, of course, they did. It was my hope that you 
had learned from that mistake, and yet I see that you have not.
    Let's take a quick example: you define Microsoft's duties to 
publish APIs in such a way that they do not exclude competitive 
activity, which sounds great-yet you define APIs in such a 
restrictive way that it is frankly incredible from a technical 
standpoint. You limit the term ``API'' to mean interaction 
between *specific* operating systems (the list of which already 
excludes two of Microsoft's newly planned products) with *specific* 
middleware products-the list of which excludes Microsoft's 
most significant middleware: SQL Server and Outlook are not in the 
list. Windows *Media* Player is in the list, but Office products are 
not. Forgive my bluntness, but I simply cannot believe that this is 
an oversight. No-one could possibly be this stupid. As the 
settlement is written, this clause will hinder Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior for about six months; by the end of 2002 they 
will be as free to quash all competition as they have been since 
riding roughshod over the 1994 consent decree.
    I'm sorry, I'm trying to be polite here, but this proposed 
settlement is so hopelessly flawed that it should by all rights be a 
public laughingstock. Unfortunately the public doesn't seem to have 
the technical knowledge required to understand the flaws-but I 
do. And this settlement, if accepted as it stands, will constitute a 
direct threat to my business.
    Michael Roberts
    Owner, Vivtek (a small software company specializing in Open 
Source software)
    Bloomington, Indiana



MTC-00019843

From: Jerry Lapham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the settlement. It is *less* than a slap on 
the wrist.
    -Jerry -



MTC-00019844

From: Dana M . Diederich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the currently proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. Even under legal threat from many fronts, including 
being found guilty of becoming an illegal monopoly, Microsoft has 
not yet reformed their behavior. I see no reason to believe that 
they will ever reform their behavior until either they are forced to 
by the Government or their fall massively damages many aspects of 
the IT and home infrastructure of the United States.
    Please find a way to make this company stop and pay attention. 
Rising prices, falling quality, failing security and predatory 
practices must not be allowed to endanger the progress of 
technology. The rest of the world is slowly moving away from 
Microsoft. Will the United States be left behind and wounded? I 
sincerely hope not.
    I, Dana M. Diederich, certify that I am a natural born citizen 
of the United States.
    Sincerely,
    Dana M. Diederich
    19 Leicester Drive
    Bella Vista, AR 72714
    (501)855-7175



MTC-00019845

From: David Krumwiede
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not go far enough to discourage the 
monopolistic practices of Microsoft and the bully tactics it uses to 
crush the competition.
    This proposal only assures that no punitive action will be taken 
by Microsoft against computer manufactures and sellers. It does not 
prohibit destructive practices against software competitors; 
encouraging the monopoly.
    David Krumwiede



MTC-00019846

From: Charles Coon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the world technology sphere there is no more important need 
than to complete the settlement and put the difficult Microsoft 
litigation issue behind. Microsoft, more than any technology 
company, was behind the economic growth of the 1990's. When 
Microsoft was threatened by the DOJ, in partnership with its 
competitors, the economy moved toward the current recession. 
Microsoft will be in the forefront in leading us out of the 
recession. We need a timely end to the litigation, and a commitment 
by Microsoft's competitors to focus on competition, rather than more 
mutually destructive court action.
    Thank you,
    Charles R. Coon,
    2416 Marlborough Place,
    Colorado Springs, Colorado,



MTC-00019847

From: Mark W. Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
AntiTtrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    Reviewing the proposed final judgment against Microsoft I find a 
glaring problem regarding the current state of the software 
industry. There are a variety of proscribed actions against OEM's, 
ISV's, and IHV's, yet what exactly constitutes a member of any of 
those groups, and what information they may have access to, is 
apparently left to Microsoft's discretion.
    Due to Microsoft's prolonged maintenance of their monopoly 
power, most corporations that would reasonably be classified in 
those groups have been severely weakened. The strongest realistic 
competitor to Microsoft's products today come from the world of 
``open source'' software.
    The open source software community functions on a completely 
different economic model than Microsoft's traditional competitors. 
They develop and distribute software at no cost, operating instead 
on a model of service and support. Absolutely key to this model is 
inter-operability with Microsoft's line of operating systems. While 
open source based software organizations have produced products with 
strong feature sets and security, due to the open nature of their 
product they simply cannot benefit from any judgment that allows 
Microsoft to not disclose inter-operability information for any 
reason.
    In particular, Section III, paragraph J. item 1, allows 
Microsoft to restrict access to compatibility information that 
``would compromise the security'' of certain information. 
Microsoft would have the public believe that security information 
must be secret in order to be secure. This is patently false and has 
been proven in the security community. As an example, Microsoft's 
IIS web server software has had a long history of regular security 
breaches, despite the complete unavailability of it's security 
information outside of Microsoft. In contrast, the Apache web 
server, the full source code of which is publicly available, has not 
had a major security breach in 4 years. Open inspection of 
Microsoft's security information is key not only for inter-
operability, but for consumer protection as well. Of greater concern 
is section 2(c) in the following section, precluding those who do 
not ``meet(s) reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business''. Microsoft has stated clearly that it does not 
believe open source software development has a role in the software 
industry. On the contrary, several companies have been established 
on open source software. Further, said software was in development 
several years before these companies even attempted to become 
``viable'' businesses. Microsoft would not have 
acknowledged software such as sendmail, apache, or Linux as 
authentic and viable business at the time of their development. 
Today, Sendmail, Inc., The Apache Group, and Linux companies such as 
Red Hat, Caldera, Suse, and Mandrake are in business based on that 
software. Apple Computer and Hewlett-Packard are testaments to the 
fact that two people in a garage is a ``viable business'' 
in this industry. I doubt if Microsoft would certify the 
authenticity and viability of today's origins of tomorrow's 
corporations.
    I have more concerns about the other specifics of this judgment, 
but the final summary is this: It provides for too much control over 
the interpretation and application of the judgment to the convicted 
perpetrator itself, Microsoft. This judgment provides little 
realistic relief for traditional competitors, no relief for open 
source competitors, and no hope for either home or corporate 
consumers wishing to extricate themselves from Microsoft's history 
of oppression.
    The entire software industry is poised for a drastic change in 
market economics. Open 


[[Page 26789]]


source software is proving to be a disruptive 
technology that offers an enormous opportunity for independent 
software developers to thrive if, and only if, Microsoft is not 
allowed to hold them at bay with continued anti-competitive 
practices.-
    Mark W. Alexander
    Senior Data Communications Specialist and
    Open source software user and contributor
    [email protected]



MTC-00019848

From: Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I honestly don't think MS is trying to ``hurt'' 
anyone........they are making their O/S simpler and easier to use 
for everyone........isn't that what the people are asking for????? 
There is no competition for them directly because everything they 
have is just that much better! Now AOL/Netscape want to sue 
them.........why????? Because of the Netscape browser which just 
couldn/can't compete?????
    Then there's Linux........well, let me tell you a 
fact.........Linux never was, and never will be competition to 
Windows......it's a ``Geek'' O/S and that's all it ever 
will be!
    Don't punish MS because they are successfull......isn't that the 
whole point of living in America?????????
    Thanx;
    Mark Bickmeyer



MTC-00019849

From: Brian Hochhalter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    After reviewing the proposed final judgment, I find I do not 
agree with its provisions to control Microsoft's well documented 
anticompetitive practices. The PFJ as it now stands does not provide 
adequate definitions of many terms such as ``Microsoft 
middleware'' and ``Windows''. It also fails to 
require Microsoft to disclose which of its software patents cover 
which APIs. In this condition those attempting to create Microsoft-
compatible products must work in ignorance as to whether they are 
infringing upon patents held by Microsoft. It does not address 
anticompetitive license terms to which users of Microsoft products 
must subject themselves in order to use Microsoft products. 
Additionally, while seeking to protect commercial competitors to 
Microsoft, it provides no provisions for those that create products 
which are available free of charge (such as Linux and various other 
open source operating systems and application programs) which 
compete with Microsoft products.
    Many people in the tech industry have examined the current PFJ 
and find it lacking. A number of them have developed alternatives 
that deserve consideration. That being the case, I request that the 
Department of Justice withdraw its consent from the current proposed 
final judgment before it is accepted by the court. Additionally I 
request that the Department of Justice and applicable agencies 
examine the recommendations of computer professionals who have sent 
comments on the PFJ and build upon those suggestions to develop a 
judgment that will better protect Microsoft's competitors and the 
American public from the results of Microsoft's anticompetitive 
practices.
    Thank you for your time
    Brian Hochhalter
    2655 Marl Oak Dr.
    Highland Park, IL 60035



MTC-00019850

From: David Alderman (Earthlink)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for hearing me.
    Microsoft has engaged in anticompetitive practices that have 
harmed the public. Their proprietary document formats preclude any 
real competition since competitors products can't be fully 
compatible. They have consistently signed exclusive agreements with 
OEM's to prevent consumer's from having a choice. This practice goes 
all the way back to DOS. They have deliberately inserted code in 
their products to prevent competitors from working. Andrew 
Shulmann's ``Undocumented Windows'' covers much of this. 
In the Windows 3.1 era, Microsoft distributed a faulty DLL to their 
competitors that prevented their products from sharing files in a 
networked environment. Microsoft Word had the working version of the 
DLL.
    I am not familiar with law, but I believe Microsoft is guilty of 
abusing its monopoly position, and they will continue to do so 
unless someone actually punishes them in a punitive manner.
    As a final note, I would like to ask the question, ``who 
owns your data?'' If you do not have Microsoft Word, Microsoft 
Excel, and Micrsoft Powerpoint, can you read your documents, 
spreadsheets, and presentations? If Microsoft asked you to return 
their software, even for a full refund, how would you gain access to 
your documents?



MTC-00019851

From: Michael Portuesi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing concerning the proposed settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft corporation.
    I believe the settlement to be very inadequte. It contains many 
loopholes that would enable Microsoft to continue their current 
predatory business practices, and to extend their monopoly to new 
markets.
    To me, the most troubling aspect of the settlement concerns the 
rules for Microsoft's disclosure of specifications of its API's, 
middleware, file formats and protocols to third parties for 
interoperability. The provisions apply only to other commercial 
entities; nowhere does it require Microsoft to make these 
specifications public for access and use by individuals and non-
profit developers. Unless we have true open access to the Microsoft 
specifications, interoperability with their products will never be 
achieved.
    This settlement goes against the spirit of the trial before it, 
and in many ways devalues the effort that went into the unanimous 
monopoly ruling.
    I urge you to reject this proposed settlement, and to urge a 
settlement that truly addresses the very important issues at the 
heart of this case.
    As a computing professional, I have a vested interest in seeing 
a healthy computing industry. We will never have that with one 
company driving all the standards, and hence all the progress in the 
field. Consumers are the ones who lose the most in the end, through 
lack of choice and stifling of innovation. - MIchael Portuesi 
400 Mississippi Street San Francisco, CA 94107-2928 
mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00019852

From: Vijay Ramasubramanian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a United States Citizen and Taxpayer, I would like to make it 
clear that I am vehemently opposed to the current Proposed 
Settlement against Microsoft.
    The proposed remedies are weak at best and ineffectual at worst. 
Since large amounts of taxpayer money have been expended by the 
Department of Justice in pursuing the case, it does not make sense 
to impose such flawed remedies on Microsoft, thereby undermining the 
best interests of the taxpayers. The scope and severity of any 
Department of Justice settlement with Microsoft should be 
commensurate with the crimes of which Microsoft was found guilty by 
the Court of Appeals. The current proposed settlement does not meet 
this criterion.
    Many scholarly documents have been written which address the 
legitimate shortfalls and ample inadequacies of the Proposed 
Settlement. Among these, I am in agreement with the views and 
evidence expressed by the Computer & Communications Industry 
Association in: http://www.ccianet.org/papers/ms/sellout.php3
    Thank you for this opportunity to present my comments.
    I Vijay N. Ramasubramanian
    mailto:[email protected]
    http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/ramasubr/



MTC-00019853

From: Matt Conners
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today as a member of the technology industry to 
encourage the Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. The settlement is fair and should be accepted 
by the government.
    Microsoft has agreed to many tough terms. Many of the terms 
extend to products and procedures that were not even mentioned in 
the original suit. Microsoft has agreed to give 


[[Page 26790]]


computer makers the flexibility to install and promote any software 
that it sees fit. Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into any 
agreement that would obligate computer makers to promote Microsoft 
software. The terms of the settlement are fair and the government 
should accept the settlement. The technology industry needs to move 
forward, the only way to move forward is to put the issue in the 
past. Please accept the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Conners



MTC-00019854

From: Kevin McKenzie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to oppose the settlement the US Attorney General 
seeks to make with Microsoft. It does not define many terms; it does 
not protect all manufacturers, only the twenty largest; and it does 
not force Microsoft to make it's file formats available. In 
addition, the API documentation it would be forced to disclosed is 
incomplete, and Microsoft is given no requirements as to how soon 
before the release of new software the APIs must be disclosed.
    Kevin [email protected]
    If believers in astrology became as well organized as the 
creationists, it is hard to see how their demands could be 
withstood. -G. Hardin, ``Marketing Deception as 
Truth''



MTC-00019855

From: Fischer, William
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:16pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    as a US citizen i feel that the proposed microsoft settlement 
poses a grave danger to the future of not only the software and 
computing industry in this country but also to the wellbeing of the 
consumer public which are, and will continue to be victimized by the 
monopolistic hold this company currently has over the general 
market. I have seen the boom of the internet from an eccentric 
cluster of interconnected ``geek'' experiments to the 
current global interface of billions upon billions of individual 
webpages. throughout this period i have also witnessed the breadth, 
influence, and power of the microsoft corporation expand to engulf 
virtually every facet of our lives, extending amoral market 
practices into niches opening far more avenues of venue than our 
current legal system was, or is currently capable of keeping pace 
with. the current proposal for settlement of this issue does little 
to hinder microsoft's ruthless ingenuity in circumventing imposed 
limitations to its illegitimate market ethics. i am not an expert in 
the field, nor am i a legal analyst, but rather a concerned denizen, 
and consumer. i see the future of the computing industry one of 
almost hopeless promise as empowerment has continually been taken 
away from the consumer over products (both hardware and software) 
he/she has purchased, yet has a right to utilize via the fair use 
doctrine. as a proof of microsoft's continual discrimitory 
practices, as well as corporate mindset i will quote a section of 
the EULA for ``The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 
SDK:'' ... you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE 
COMPONENT in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. 
``Publicly Available Software'' means each of (i) any 
software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in 
part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open 
source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution 
models ... Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, 
software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses 
or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar 
to any of the following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or 
Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the 
Mozilla Public License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun 
Community Source License (SCSL); ... as i stated before i am not an 
expert in the field, and as such this e mail should not be weighed 
by my evidence, but rather by the concern of an ``average 
citizen'' that feels the proposed settlement will do little to 
change microsoft's influence on my life.
    that is all.
    -william fischer



MTC-00019856

From: CHip FInch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    end the microsoft monopoly!!!!!
    Give Apple computer all the government computers.
    chip



MTC-00019857

From: Joe DeLassus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with MIcrosoft corporation is a bad 
idea. Simply put the operating system for the closest thing that 
exists for a universal personal computing device should be in the 
public domain so that true innovation can move forward.



MTC-00019858

From: David Walser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement does 
little to advance the cause of justice. My primary concern is that 
the remedy of requiring Microsoft to donate computers and software 
to schools will damage the competitiveness of one of the few markets 
Microsoft does not currently dominate. From which company will these 
schools purchase software once the donated software becomes obsolete 
(next year)? Microsoft.
    David K. Walser
    2136 N. Ashbrook
    Mesa, AZ 85213
    480/615-9252



MTC-00019859

From: William Lamb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    It is my belief that the current proposed settlement is 
completely inadequate. It poses nothing more than a set of 
inconveniences which Microsoft can easily navigate their way around 
while continuing their anti-competitive practices. Nothing less than 
a full break up will end Microsoft's illegal business practices.
    Sincerely,
    William Lamb
    Aurora, IL



MTC-00019860

From: Sandor Kunyik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As long as it is not signed into law that I will HAVE to pay 
Microsoft for buying computer hardware or for signing onto a public 
network I will find work-arounds, I will abuse rules and break every 
marketing scheme to be able to use Linux and Mozzilla for my needs, 
and I will regret this outrageous settlement that was brough upon 
the U.S. people.
    I will not purchase or use Microsoft products unless someone 
sticks a shotgun into my ribs-which will certainly happen more 
sooner than later. At the same token, I will never again buy a GM, 
or buy pizza from the guy on the corner-unless I'll have no 
other choice.
    Taking my business elsewhere used to be my greates privilige as 
a consumer in a free marketplace-until Microsoft came along 
and ensured that I CAN NOT take my business anywhere else!
    This settlemen will prove it once again that ruthless, unlawful 
business pays huge, and that the punishment in this country will 
never match the crime.
    One last thing: Microsoft is not an Innovator... *WE ARE* 
innovators, those who learned and worked to be able to do WITHOUT 
Microsoft in all these years, and we will keep doing so!
    With no particular regards (due to the lousy job you did)
    Sandor Kunyik
    Web Developer
    Wheeling, IL
    software is like the mind it works the best when it's open



MTC-00019861

From: ac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I am a Canadian citizen, it is with great concern that 
I have watched this trial, the findings, and now the resolution.
    It is a difficult problem, but it is clear that Microsoft will 
continue to exercise what it believes are its rights by violating 
the rights of other companies to compete in markets that Microsoft 
chooses to dominate.
    The existing settlement is unacceptable, it does not serve the 
communities or the markets that Microsoft has impacted by their 
actions. There are several possibilities, but any solution should 
benefit education, reinvigorate the technology markets to 


[[Page 26791]]


compete, and punish Microsoft by forcing a change in their business 
practices. $1 billion dollars is a paltry sum to Microsoft. At 5% 
interest they can earn that back in a year on the $35 billion they 
would have left. I would propose a $10 billion fine. $5 billion set 
up as an education fund to be administered by a neutral 3rd party, 
and $5 billion to set up a fund to reinvigorate the technology 
market and give new companies the opportunity to compete in the 
market place.
    I also believe that Microsoft should open source their browser, 
and if they bundle middleware (IE, Windows Media Player, MSN) 
competitors should have the same access to customers and rights to 
bundle as well. The difficulty is in trying to ensure that companies 
can compete on the OS platform in areas where Microsoft wants 
dominance. The only way to determine if any remedy is successful is 
to see if business can compete effectively and reach consumers 
fairly to compete for their business. Consumers have been summarily 
brainwashed to a large degree due to Microsoft's actions, they need 
to know that it doesn't have to be Microsoft if they don't want it.
    Microsoft Office's file formats should be opened as well. 
Although they were not part of the case, this could be a key part of 
opening competition in markets where Microsoft has a stronghold. 
Office is a ubiquitous standard. There are no serious competitors 
because no other company is able to ensure compatibility with the 
Microsoft Office file format. This market has stagnated as well. 
There aren't many choices for consumers or businesses due to the 
file format issue. Opening the format up would create an even 
playing field. Companies could release their software and compete 
based on features and price.
    Currently Apple is the only other choice that consumers have. 
Microsoft's practices on Apple's platform are much different than 
their practises on their own platform. Its the control of the OS, 
control of the middleware, and control of standard file formats that 
are suffocating the industry. If Microsoft claims they want freedom 
to innovate, then level the playing field and let the consumers 
decide.
    Thank you.



MTC-00019862

From: GERALD THOMPSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please settle the case . i don't use microbrowser [ msn] i use 
one that started in my town. i don't under stand all this. i didn't 
like aol or netscape. windows is the best thing that ever happened 
to computors.



MTC-00019863

From: Don Erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    Microsoft has amassed the single largest corporate fortune in 
history, not by being the best but be being the most ruthless. I 
would like to register disapproval of the proposed settlement.
    Don Erickson
    Kansas City



MTC-00019864

From: Jesse Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have a number of concerns about the proposed settlement 
between the US Department of Justice, and the Microsoft Corporation.
    (1) The (proposed) settlement is not sufficiently strong to 
prevent Microsoft from pursuing similar activities in the future. 
The proposed restrictions apply to narrow ranges of activity, most 
of which can be circumvented easily by changing product names (as 
the settlement specifies product names instead of classes of 
products), or developing new products that perform similar purposes.
    (2) There is no clear enforcement mechanism for this settlement. 
While there is the creation of an oversight committee, it has no 
obvious powers to give punishment for any breaches of the terms of 
the settlement.
    (3) The group responsible for implementing many of the points 
listed in the settlement, namely OEMs, are tied directly to 
Microsoft for their revenue by selling Microsoft Products. This, I 
believe, does not constitute an unbiased group for carrying out the 
points of the settlement.
    (4) Finally, Microsoft has used its monopoly standing to 
directly hurt some consumers, myself included, by forcing them to 
purchase their products from OEM companies. In my case specifically, 
I have purchased two systems from Dell Computers, and have had to 
pay approximately $100 in each case (a total of about $200) for a 
copy of Windows 98 and Windows Millenium that I did not wish to buy.
    Thank you,



MTC-00019865

From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My personal opinion is that the DoJ just gave Microsoft a very 
gentle slap on the wrist and is missing the whole point of the 
lawsuit.
    If you look at Microsoft's .Net program, we will all be renting 
software from Microsoft forever and this will guarantee Microsoft's 
monopoly position in the operating system market instead of allowing 
true competition, which would make all computer software better 
instead of putting out truely defective software as is now the case. 
This just touches the surface of my position and arguement against 
the current settlement.
    Thank you,
    John Russell



MTC-00019866

From: Stephen Kaufer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24pm
Subject: Settlement in Microsoft Case
    I have studied much of the proposed microsoft settlement, and as 
CEO of an independant software/internet company, I find the 
settlement severly lacking. Frankly, I do not believe it will do any 
good. I fully expect that Microsoft will simply ``redefine the 
problem'', leaving the justice department to enforce a remedy 
that is no longer relevant or helpful to those harmed by Microsoft's 
illegal actions.
    The fact that it is agreed upon by everyone (except MS) that 
they vigorously broke the law, yet have managed to escape serious 
penalty, denies any meaning to judge Jackson's verdict. The current 
settlement will also deny justice to those hurt and ruined by 
Microsoft's practices.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Kaufer
    CEO
    TripAdvisor, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00019867

From: Paul Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed antitrust settlement 
with Microsoft. In two words, it stinks.
    From what I have read, it is riddled with loopholes for 
Microsoft to exploit-and their past behavior has demonstrated 
that if there is a loophole, they will use it.
    An example of this is that I have read the settlement applies 
only to personal computers, which are defined as having keyboards. 
No keyboard, the settlement doesn't apply. So MS can do whatever 
they want with their X-box game player, and a tablet PC that reads 
the user's handwriting. When voice recognition systems are 
perfected, they can do whatever they want with that, as well.
    Here's an article from a respected industry news organization 
that discusses some of the potential loopholes:
    http://news.com.com/
2100-1001-275375.html?legacy=cnet
    The ``concessions'' that MS has made are meaningless, 
and they are paying no penalty for their *crimes*, as noted by 
respected columnist Dan Gillmor: http://web.siliconvalley.com/
content/sv/2001/11/02/opinion/dgillmor/weblog/i ndex.htm
    Columnist Bob Lewis of InfoWorld wonders why MS gets to 
negotiate as an equal party when they have been convicted of 
criminal behavior:
    http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/01/07/
020107opsurvival.xml
    I also think it is shameful that the Bush Administration is 
proposing such a weak settlement to a case that required several 
years and many millions of dollars to win.
    I believe that the settlement proposed by the nine holdout 
states is a more appropriate resolution.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Murray
    9961 Pierson
    Detroit, MI 48228
    Paul Murray
    http://www.paulmurray.net



MTC-00019868

From: Michael Rothwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. I am writing to voice my opposition to the anemic 
settlement currently under 


[[Page 26792]]


consideration between Microsoft and the 
DOJ. Microsoft ignored the consent decree and its behavioral 
remedies last time. It will ignore them again. The culture at 
Microsoft will not change because of this settlement.
    The economy, the I.T. industry, and computer science need a 
durable remedy for Microsoft. One that it cannot work around. I had 
high hopes for the break-up. I still have some hope.
    Please do not allow the settlement in its current form to go 
forward.
    Michael Rothwell
    513 Baygall Road
    Holly Springs, NC 27540
    [email protected]
    919-557-5466



MTC-00019869

From: Jenny Ellsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Comments
    As a remedy for Microsoft's abuse of monopolistic power, it 
would be better to forbid them to give their products to schools 
than to require it. I am an IT professional for the City of Newport 
Beach, and an important part of my job is computer training. I know, 
from observing users in our Microsoft-dominated environment, that 
exposure and training are the determining factors for a user's 
choice of software. Allowing Microsoft to monopolize the 
schoolchildren and future computer professionals of this country 
will only serve to ensure that they continue to monopolize the 
software industry in years to come.
    In addition to serving Microsoft's business needs of the future, 
such so-called ``charity'' would cost them pennies to 
provide software to schools, and offer Microsoft both tax benefits 
and good public relations. Microsoft has in the past regarded the 
DOJ as giving them a mandate to monopolize the software industry, 
and this would be no different. Were they to provide cash, rather 
than software, to be used as the schools need to use it, that would 
be a great aid.
    Allowing PC makers to install non-Microsoft software is not 
sufficient to enable competition. Microsoft must be made to separate 
the operating system from their other applications. Many users I 
know are at least somewhat confused about the difference between 
Windows, Office, and the Internet. This is the result of Microsoft's 
deliberately ambiguous naming conventions and the interaction 
between Microsoft products that cannot be matched by any other 
software manufacturer. I realize that dissociating their OS and 
other software is a tall order, but without such a move, competitors 
will not succeed.
    Microsoft clearly believes that the DOJ and the State Attorneys 
General will not act against them. This has made them arrogant. They 
feel safe to act in a non-competitive manner, bullying companies and 
extorting money from them. When Newport Beach's IT department 
invited their reprentative to help us be in complience with their 
license agreements, the person from Microsoft spent most of his time 
threatening to audit us, telling us why piracy was bad, and often 
insulting us. To quote their representative when we produced our 
evidence of legitimate purchases, ``That and a dollar will buy 
you a cup of coffee,'' and ,``You know, we audit cities 
like you, and we win. Ask your city attorney; he will tell you it 
isn't worth it to fight us.''
    Remember, we invited them to visit us. We asked for their help. 
They acted like bullies. Coercion through legal action is 
distasteful in a major corporation, but is illegal in a clear 
monopoly.
    Microsoft must be made to clarify their licensing. Although we 
had paid for every single copy of Microsoft software, we, as 
intelligent computer professionals, couldn't understand the 
requirements well enough to comply with them. The licensing 
requirements are deliberately confusing and hard to comply with, and 
Microsoft knows that most companies will simply pay for more 
licenses, rather than try to fight them on an audit.
    Please, do not allow Microsoft to infiltrate schools to increase 
their monopolistic power. Please, demand that Microsoft separate 
their OS from their other software. Please, require that Microsoft 
establish clear licensing that doesn't lead to entrapping customers.
    These opinions represent my observations as an IT professional 
in an organization of over 400 people. The views do not necessarily 
represent those of the City of Newport Beach.
    Jenny Ellsworth
    MIS Technical Services Specialist
    City of Newport Beach
    3300 Newport Blvd.
    Newport Beach, CA 92663



MTC-00019870

From: Michael Skora
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to say that the proposed settlement seems to be 
lacking in many areas. See Dan Kegel's analysis of said (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html). Additionally and possibly more 
unsettling are the ramifications that Cringely brings up in his 
December 6th column (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html), specifically it is not guaranteed that free 
software organizations will have access to the necessary APIs for 
interoperability. Others have suggested that Microsoft may resort to 
bundling third party software or placing patents at key points to 
restrict access to important APIs.
    Basically, I trust Microsoft less than I trust a floppy disk to 
keep my data safe, which is to say not at all. Throughout the 
proceedings and settlement they have exhibited not only a 
willingness to lie and cheat, but an arrogance and nastiness 
flaunted in the face of the laws and system. Microsoft needs to be 
taught a lesson they will not soon forget (certainly not as quickly 
as they forgot the last ``lesson''). It should be example 
to the companies that seek to follow in their footsteps, an example 
that our monopoly laws are here for the public good and we will not 
allow the public good to be harmed for any amount of lobbying and 
campaign contributions.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Skora
    913 Gott St.
    Ann Arbor, MI 48103-3151
    Manager of Web Services, UofM Plant Operations
    http://www.plantops.umich.edu/
    Office: (734) 615-3394
    Office: 326 E. Hoover, Physical Properties Building
    Cellular: (734) 260-9981
    Fax: (734) 615-1729
    Pager: [email protected]
    PDA: [email protected]
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/parsec
    :``Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain 
Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either 
one.''-Thomas Jefferson
    :``Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a 
little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
    :-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 
1759



MTC-00019871

From: carol smart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24pm
Subjecttunney act microsoft
    to whom it may concern:
    i strongly disagree with the decision made for settlement 
concerning microsoft issuing new computer software and hardware to 
underpriviledged schools.
    i do not think this will be a strong enough punishment for the 
monoply microsoft. this will only insure that their product will 
fall into the hands of our youth, who are our future and will equal 
more sales for microsoft in the long run.
    if school children learn how to operate microsoft products and 
have access to them, they will be more likely to purchase these 
products and to influance their parents to do so.
    please take these comments into thought in your settlement 
decision.
    carol kristjansson



MTC-00019872

From: John Harkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft was found guilty of a major crime. An appropriate 
punishment should be levied. A hand slap won't do-I don't 
think that breaking up the company is too severe. They continue to 
use unfair business practices-they are now trying to kill Java 
the same way they destroyed Netscape-it's the ultimate in 
arrogance. Don't reward unethical behavior-do the right thing 
please.
    John Harkins
    10608 Delfield Ct.
    Laurel MD 20723



MTC-00019873

From: Donald J. Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200



[[Page 26793]]


Washington, DC 20530-0001
    The current Microsoft settlement is a very bad idea. Microsoft 
has postponed and delayed the proceedings to the point that the 
original Internet browser case will be far overshadowed by their 
.NET initiative which will make the monopolistic tendencies shown in 
the Netscape case like a springtime daisy. Microsoft must be broken 
down to prevent it from becoming the defacto arbiter of all 
activities on the Internet and our economy. Microsoft is bad. 
Breaking up Microsoft is good.
    Thank you,
    Donald J. Moore
    President
    Houses.com, Inc.



MTC-00019874

From: Technomage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft ``Setllement''
    I've been reading up on the proposed ``Settlement'' 
that is being offered Microsoft and I feel that we (the users, 
authors, and others) would be done a grave disservice if the 
proposed ``Settlement'' (as ammended) passes. In fact, it 
doesn't go far enough to protect others from the currently 
maintained ``Microsoft Monopoly''.
    Sorry, the current deal is just not acceptable. try harder!!!



MTC-00019875

From: Timothy Jedlicka bonzopad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to point out some problems with the Proposed Final 
Judgment concerning United States vs. Microsoft as allowed by the 
Tunney Act.
    I have had great difficulty avoiding the Microsoft monopoly. The 
court should try to remedy the monopoly, as well as assess real 
punitive damages, and encourage real competition. This will 
ultimately benefit the entire computer industry and all users.
    The PFJ falls short in several areas, the following are the ones 
that continue to hamper my attempt at avoiding the Microsoft 
monopoly.
    The ``Findings of Fact'' (paragraphs 20 and 39) found 
that Microsoft's UNDOCUMENTED file formats form an Applications 
Barrier to Entry. I have trouble finding compatible competitive 
software that will read Microsoft documents because Microsoft does 
not have to publish their file formats. This inhibits competition 
and encourages Microsoft's continuing monopoly.
    Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who work with Open Source. 
The ``Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA'' 
prohibits the distribution of the redistributable component if it is 
in conjunction with Publicly Available Software. This discourages 
the use and growth of the Open Source community.
    The PFJ does not place restrictions on how Microsoft licenses 
products to large users known as ``enterprises''. I work 
for a large corporation, but do not run Microsoft on my PC. However 
due to the licensing practices my department is still required to 
pay Microsoft licensing fees because my PC ``could 
potentially'' run a Microsoft OS. This gives no incentive for 
individuals or my department to run non-Microsoft software, since we 
would still have to pay the licensing fees.
    I would suggest the court seriously consider Red Hat's offer to 
give an OS (Linux) and applications to schools for free forever if 
Microsoft provides the hardware. This appears to be a win for 
everyone who should benefit.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy E. Jedlicka
    Glen Ellyn, IL
    Network Entomologist/Computer Engineer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019876

From: William Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft remedy should NOT have them giving to primary 
schools.
    Dear DOJ,
    The Microsoft remedy should NOT have them giving software to 
primary schools.
    I'm happy if Microsoft give as much hardware as it wants to 
schools, just as long as there is no Microsoft software bundled with 
it.
    Otherwise, if microsoft gives software to schools, this is just 
a trojan horse and the tip of the iceberg if you look at the total 
cost of ownership. The maintenance of microsoft software has yet to 
automated, unlike Apple Macintosh and Linux, and all it's other 
competitors.
    A person still has to weekly click on Windows update on every 
box in order to keep secure any version of Microsoft windows. Don't 
foist insecure hardware on our schools, the folks least able to 
afford it.
    - Hope this helps,
    Bill Day
    CC:William Dechand



MTC-00019877

From: Sam Mankiewicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Proposed Final Judgement in its curret form does 
not do enough to remedy Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. 
First, the definition of what API's Microsoft must make public is 
incomplete, and excludes certain API's that Microsoft can use in the 
future to leverage its monopoly. Second, the provision that would 
allow Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs who ship PCs without a 
Microsoft OS installed is essentially condoning this anti-
competitive practice instead of remedying it. Lastly, Microsoft has 
shown in the past that it has no intention of upholding the spirit 
of its agreements with the DOJ; therefore, stronger enforcement 
mechanisms ar needed. At the very least, a Technical Committee will 
be able to publicize Microsoft's transgressions more quickly, even 
if it can't do anything about them. Remember, this is a repeat 
offender you're dealing with-they've demonstrated before they 
are willing to behave illegally and I'm sure they'll do it again.
    Sincerely,
    Sam Mankiewicz
    Registered Voter and citizen, United States of America
    254 Eureaka Ct.
    Sunnyvale, CA 94085



MTC-00019878

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    this is a real travesty!, i hope that the us government does 
some(a little at least) homework on this. microsoft is a beast that 
needs it's wings clipped.
    tim blair
    856 poplar trace
    elizabethtown, ky 42701



MTC-00019879

From: David Union
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am one of the voices that is for stopping the case against 
microsoft as it's currently being carried on.
    What microsoft *DID* do wrong is trying to force vendors to not 
carry other Operating Systems by offering them decreased prices for 
not offering options, sometimes disguising this as making them pay 
by the PC's they sold, not by the ones they sold with a MS Operating 
system.
    This should be addressed as anti-competitive and the judge 
should let the companies effected by this, that had an alternate for 
the relevant hardware, perhaps sue for damages.
    The bundling issue is completely bogus, and fabricated by 
competitors hoping to use the case to aid them in their business 
rivalry against a more well run competitor.
    Microsoft is *not* known for innovation. Most of the stuff they 
``bundled'' they in fact did so in response to their 
competition doing it first.
    I can do this case by case
-Disk Compression: DR Dos added it, Microsoft Followed
-Networking: Novel DOS added it, Microsoft Followed. Most UNIX 
operating systems had this first, including some by SUN, one of the 
people trying to testify against MS
-Internet Browsers: Many people had this before Microsoft
-Mice-Xerox had this first
-GUI-Xerox had this first, and GEOS had it first on the 
PC.
-CD Burning Software-MAC OS ``bundled'' this 
first
-Video Editing-MAC OS ``bundled'' this first
-Built in graphics printer drivers-this was also an 
``add-on'', but the ``MAC'' OS bundled this 
first.
-Multiple Monitor Support-MAC OS ``Bundled'' 
this first.
-Encryption/Security-SUN OS ``Bundled'' that 
first
-Clustering-Many people ``bundled'' that first


[[Page 26794]]


-FTP-All UNIX OS's ``bundled'' this first
-Telnet-All UNIX OS's bundled this first
    I could go on for pages.
    In all cases there were ``stand-alone'' products that 
had these features that were ``bundled'' by the other OS 
before microsoft thought of it. They did it because their 
competitors did, to keep up with them.
    All of this is also just the natural extension of an OS 
(operating system). First you talk to some types of hardware, and as 
more becomes ``cheap'' you arrange to talk to it, 
including network drivers, cards, wireless stuff, etc. You keep 
adding features to give people reasons to buy the new version, 
otherwise they won't-just like with cars or any other consumer 
product.
    Also, Microsoft helped the industry in other ways, basically 
democratizing it. In the 80's, before Microsoft, just a word 
processor (Word Perfect, #1 at the time) was nearly $500. Adjust 
that for inflation, and see what you get for the same money today. 
Compare the cost of ``Lotus 123'' in real dollars then and 
a whole office suite now. Microsoft's strong place has led to a huge 
upswell in the market. If there wasn't one really big market that 
developers could write for they never would have gotten the volume 
up to get the prices down, in real dollars, to where they are today. 
Especially when at the time folks like Novell, IBM, SUN, DEC, and 
all the folks wining now were charging thousands of dollars 
(sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the 
``priviledge'' of getting the tools to develop for their 
proprietary platform.
    Look Microsoft is no saint. They decide all issues based on how 
much money it will cost or make. I've worked with projects and been 
told by SUN that they won't give us any information on their 
products because we (at the time I was a contractor working for 
another storage company) were a potential competitor. Is this not 
worse than Microsoft?
    I was on another project-we were building a server. Intel 
was one of the main competitors. They bought out in a single month 
the chipset provider and memory provider, then jacked the prices up 
of the parts we'd need (and put delivery schedules on hold) killing 
the whole idea of competing with them. Is that not worse than 
Microsoft? I could go on and on, but all the folks complaining 
against Microsoft are the pot calling the kettle black. Let people 
on a case-by-case sue for damages on the bundling issue and drop the 
rest of the case and save we tax-payers all the expense of the case.
    Hurting Microsoft hurts the Software industry as a whole, which 
is not something we need right now.
    David Union
    Software Engineer
    Currently: Vibren Technology, Inc. Former employee of of EMC 
Corp., and before that of Data General Corporation. Long before 
Microsoft, IBM came to Data General, who had a DOS operating system, 
and asked to license it for use on their ``IBM PC''. Some 
``brilliant'' marketing guy at the time said that 
``Data General wasn't a software company.'' I'll bet he 
regrets that one



MTC-00019880

From: Harry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am writing by appeal to the Tunney Act to protest the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft case. It is very clear that this 
settlement is an inadequate remedy. I draw your attention to the 
following issues that must be properly resolved to restore fair 
competition in this industry.
    1. The court must abolish licensing terms which prevent 
microsoft software from being used on competing operating systems 
(such as Wine) capable of running Windows software.
    2. The court must prevent microsoft from building into its 
software code which detects and runs aberrantly under competing 
operating systems.
    3. The court should directly encourage the building of microsoft 
alternative operating systems by offering aid to open-source groups 
currently engaged in building microsoft compatible operating 
systems.
    I further believe that the continued existence of a corporate 
entity providing both operating system, all major software and 
browser for personal computers is a barrier to the development of 
software that is in the public's interest. Microsoft should be 
forced to divest itself of Internet Explorer and separately of the 
Microsoft Office suite of programs.
    Sincerely
    Harold A. Burgess
    Michael Granato Lab
    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology
    University of Pennsylvania
    1210 BRBII Building
    421 Curie Blvrd
    Philadelphia, PA 19104-6058
    USA
    PHONE: 215-898-8386
    FAX: 215-898-9871



MTC-00019881

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Opinon
    Bad idea. Punish them more.
    JTM



MTC-00019882

From: Mike Venzke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is ridiculous the way everyone is treating Microsoft.
    I am a software developer, and a linux user, but I think 
Microsoft should be left alone.
    Don't let the whines of unsuccessful companies lead you to bring 
down one who pays attention to people and does things right.
    Microsoft created the very industry that breeds the people who 
are currently whining about them. It is because of Microsoft that 
they exist, and that they continue to exist.
    Microsoft is not at all a permanent fixture. The volatility of 
the market has shown that even the biggest, most successful 
companies can be put of business rather fast by industry changes.
    If someone wants to compete with Microsoft, let them make better 
software. But, please, don't force us to use second-rate operating 
systems just because some people whine because no one uses their 
software.
    On the same note, I don't think anti-trust cases should even be 
pursued in the same manner they once were.
    It seems like all we're doing is fighting amongst ourselves 
& letting the foreign companies dominate.
    We should learn something from the Japanese regarding large 
companies.
    Foreign companies will, and have been providing all of the 
competition the people need. Stop taking jobs away from Americans by 
crippling our companies and allowing foreign companies to take over.
    The End.
    Mike Venzke,
    US Citizen.



MTC-00019883

From: Eric Hendrickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is bad idea



MTC-00019884

From: Anoop Ranganath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i am firmly opposed to microsoft's proposed settlement simply 
because it is just a veiled attempt on their part to gain even a 
larger foothold in the market through their ``education'' 
grants. if they want to give to the schools, that's fine, they 
shoudl just give cash to be used anyway the school sees fit.
    thank you,
    Anoop Ranganath



MTC-00019885

From: John Panzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to protest the proposed settlement agreement 
relating to the antitrust action against Microsoft Corporation. It 
effectively maintains the status quo, and does not do anything to 
deter Microsoft from future anticompetitive practices or do anything 
substantive to remedy the its past abuses of its OS monopoly. The 
company has shown no indication that it plans to change its 
practices. This settlement does not serve as a deterrent, nor does 
it directly prevent future monopolistic abuses.
    There are many shortcomings to the proposed settlement, and 
others have pointed them out more ably than I can. I will just add 
two more suggestions:
    (1) Microsoft should be required to fully and accurately 
document all the file formats that its OS and application products 
use. This is a major, and artificial, barrier to interoperation 
between Microsoft products and other products.
    (2) As the equivalent of a ``common carrier'' in the 
OS world, Microsoft should be required to give access in a 


[[Page 26795]]


nondiscriminatory manner to all organizations, individuals, or 
companies who wish to create software to interoperate with their OSs 
and applications. A neutral regulatory body should review their 
licences, present and future, to ensure that they meet this 
standard. The body should have veto power over all such licences.
    Thank you,
    John Panzer
    151 Calderon #195
    Mountain View, CA 94041
    [email protected]



MTC-00019886

From: Walter S. Rue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I don't agree with DOJ settlement and I therefore support the 
nine dissenting states who did not settle.
    My main problem is that I do not believe Microsoft's abusively 
monopolistic behaviour will be restrained in any substantial way by 
the currently proposed remedies.
    Sincerely,
    Walter S. Rue
    95 Maple Street, Apt. 12
    Malden, Massachusetts 02148
    1-781-397-2468



MTC-00019887

From: Wilkins Ken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/23/2002
Kenneth Galle
222 Alfred Station Rd
Alfred Station NY 14803
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement being offered 
to Microsoft. I am dismayed by the lack of remedy this settlement 
offers to U.S. citizens for Microsoft's anti competitive practices. 
Specifically, I have been personally damaged from Microsoft's policy 
of leveraging out of business any OEM that ships personal computers 
which do not contain a Microsoft Operating System. Microsoft should 
have no right to force their Operating System and any other bound 
software, such as Internet Explorer, onto a consumer's personal 
computer. This is clearly anti competitive, and a blatant misuse of 
the monopoly power of Microsoft Corp.
    Section III.A.2. of the settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate 
against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing 
Operating System but no Microsoft operating system. This is unfair 
and wrong, and should be illegal based on the judgment against 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Galle



MTC-00019888

From: S. Michael Tripper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1. They broke a previous court order, blithely and openly. They 
must face harsh penalties to ensure respect for the law.
    2. Opening up the education market to MS, a feat which they have 
not had great penetration is nonsensical in and of itself and will 
hurt legitimate software companies.
    3. The operating system does not include writing programs, 
photo-editing programs, internet-surfing programs or email programs. 
It is simply the software which allows other software to run on the 
hardware. MS must offer this ``stripped-down'' or more 
accurately, proper system to all purchasers of MS 
software-wholesalers, retailers and others.
    4. They be forbidden to ``implant'' secret APIs. If 
they are building an operating system then they must allow fair 
competition by completely opening up tall their commands, sub-
commands, API's, hardware and software calls, IO, etc to licensed 
developpers. Theses developers must all have identical terms, with 
reductions for block purchases only.
    Thank you,
    Michael Tripper
    416.538-2705
    57 Wilson Park Road
    Toronto, Ontario
    Canada
    M6K 3B6



MTC-00019889

From: Gabriel Ash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: comment on the proposed settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft
    I would like to express my adamant opposition to the proposed 
settlement. The proposed settlement does not effectively punish 
Microsoft for proven illegal behavior. The proposed settlement does 
not effectively prevent Microsoft from continuing to abuse its 
monopoly. The proposed settlement sends the wrong message about the 
rule of law to would be violators and to the public.
    The proposed settlement fails to prohibit many of the abuses 
that were revealed in the trial, including punitive pricing and 
coercive contracts. But even within the few and inadequate 
restrictions it does establish, the settlement lacks a serious 
enforcing mechanism. It leaves Microsoft free to interpret the 
agreement and requires a new trial in order to establish violations. 
That would be unsound in any case, let alone in this case, in which 
the offender has a track record of bad faith in dealing with the 
law.
    The weakness of the proposed settlement stands in stark contrast 
to the strong findings of fact against Microsoft. The finding that 
Microsoft's abused its monopoly withstood appeal. That the DOJ would 
agree to such a week deal from such a strong position suggests 
either incompetence or corruption.
    Microsoft has been bound by a consent decree even before the 
latest trial. That consent decree was poorly observed. In the trial, 
disturbing evidence emerged regarding the complete contempt in which 
key Microsoft executives held the federal government and the 
judicial system. Here is a company that not only broke the law, but 
did it repeatedly and brazenly, and never showed an ounce of 
contrition and never accepted responsability, even after the appeals 
court sustained most of the case against it. For such a company to 
come out of this case basically unscathed, is to invite a general 
contempt for anti-trust law and federal oversight of commerce in 
general. Especially now, after the massive failure of regulation 
that was revealed in the Enron collapse, this is the wrong message 
for the court to send to the nation.
    America needs to hear from this court a n affirmation of the 
integrity of the law and of the role of the government in overseeing 
and enforcing the rules of commercial competition. Accepting this 
settlement will not acheive this goal.
    respectfully
    Gabriel Ash
    [email protected]



MTC-00019890

From: Steve Blair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    Regarding the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft Corporation, I have to say I am grievously 
disappointed in the ``supposed'' remedy. Like many other 
Americans I am beside myself in disbelief after reading the 
settlement. I've listed my concerns below.
    1. The settlement proposes nothing to effectively address the 
possible recurrence of anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft 
Corporation. The definition concerning ``Windows Operating 
System Product'' among others leaves much to be desired. A 
simple name change or new ``Operating System Product'' 
allows Microsoft to wriggle out from underneath this one.
    2. The settlement proposes nothing to address punitive and 
reparative measures on behalf of companies such as Netscape 
Communications, Caldera and others which clearly fell victim to 
Microsofts'' anti-competitive nature.
    3. The settlement does not punish Microsoft for a single 
violation of the Sherman act. The proposed settlement continually 
points out that Microsoft violated anti-competitive laws, yet there 
is not even a whisper of any consequence.
    I sincerely hope that the final draft of the Proposed Final 
Judgement against Microsoft Corporation addresses these issues (and 
the many others I did not mention) and does not merely mention the 
fact that the law was broken. Although this may not be the most 
opportune moment to make an example out of another 
``monopoly'' (I remember AT&T's divestiture), I 
believe it is necessary and I believe it is the right thing to do.
    ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for 
good men to do nothing.''
    Edmund Burke



MTC-00019891

From: G.J.


[[Page 26796]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have watched the proceedings of the Microsoft trial for years. 
Its obvious to myself and many others in the computer industry that 
Microsoft just bullies its way around, or uses stall tactics to get 
it's way.
    Microsoft has made a laughing stock out of the government and 
the legal system. The legal system has no balls. The message to 
everyone is if you have enough money and lawyers you can do what you 
want. I personally want to see Microsoft held accountable for their 
wrongdoing and suffer the consequencs. Thankfully the attempt to 
contribute their software on the schools was thwarted. Don't let 
this case keep dragging on, give Microsoft their medicine.
    Gary Johnson
    email [email protected]



MTC-00019892

From: Kevin Dickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I have reviewed the Final Judgment for the Microsoft antitrust 
case dated November 6, 2001. I, as a United States Citizen, would 
like to provide my comments on this proposed settlement.
    I am a software engineer by trade, and have been working in such 
a position for 2 years. Beyond this, I am have been using computers 
for many years having experience with and programming in Unix, 
Linux, Windows, and MacOS.
    Overall, I do not feel that this settlement does enough to keep 
Microsoft from retaining a strangle hold of the operating system 
space, the home user's choices and the computer industry in general, 
especially for the long term. Also, I do not feel that this 
settlement provides enough of an umbrella to prevent Microsoft from 
gaining monopolies in additional areas. In paragraph D of section 
III. Prohibited Conduct, I first read this as a good start, 
releasing APIs and other documentation to certain areas of the 
computer industry. I believe that this should be extended, that 
everyone should be able to view and use these APIs and documentation 
easily and license free. Doing so, I believe, would allow others 
create a competing operating systems that would be able to run 
current Windows applications, and also to allow more application 
which can compete with Microsoft middleware application. Later on, 
in paragraph J of the same section, it would seem that paragraph D 
could be voided out by Microsoft claiming and this API and that 
documentation cannot be released as it would constitute a security 
violation or anti-piracy/anti-virus workaround. We know that 
Microsoft agrees with the security through obscurity idea. One only 
needs to look at Unix and Linux to see that this is not the case 
with their relative lack of wide spread viruses and worms 
infections.
    I also feel that the releasing of APIs and documentation should 
be extended from just Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft is 
currently working on their .NET project. This is not itself an 
operating system as I understand it, but it is a large platform for 
another level of applications. It this area it could again put a 
strangle on competing applications.
    My final point is one of this settlement's length of 
enforcement. In section V. Termination, this settlement is only 
enforceable for 5 years (barring an extension). My thought is that 
this is far too short. But I do not have experience in writing out 
final judgments and do not know how this compares to other 
settlements of the past.
    These are a few of my views of the Final Judgment. I hope they 
will be taken into consideration. Microsoft was found guilty by the 
US courts and should be punished to the fullest extent. They have 
done much for the computer industry and for the general user, but I 
would argue that more and greater innovations would have come about 
in the absence of Microsoft's monopolistic actions.
    Thank you for your time.
    Kevin W. Dickson,
    Software Engineer,
    Raytheon Co.
    Billerica, Massachusetts



MTC-00019893

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that an important part of the settlement should 
include a provision for oems and retailers to be able to include a 
dual boot or multi-boot environment on the computers they sell. 
Current microsoft oem agreements do not allow computers sold with 
microsoft windows to include a different or competing operating 
system on the same computer in a configuration that would allow the 
user to pick which operating system to use when they turned the 
machine on. This would be a very simple setup for most computer 
makers, and a most effective way to introduce some competition in 
the market. Many computer producers would love to put multiple 
operating systems on their computers without a penalty from 
microsoft, but they cannot.
    Please be very specific when issuing orders to microsoft. They 
do not believe they have done anything wrong, and with fight and 
cheat every inch of the way. They will do whatever they want, and 
just argue in court that they have not violated the agreement. 
Please reword the any agreement in a way that will be very easy to 
prove whether or not microsoft has violated the terms or not, 
because they will violate them, and we need to be able to enforce 
whatever settlement there is.
    Will Hansard
    Jonesboro, Arkansas



MTC-00019894

From: Steven E. Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I urge you to carefully consider the damage caused by the 
business practices of The Microsoft Corporation. The business 
practices of a monopolist must be different from those of other 
businesses. Without the significant intervention on your part, the 
American consumer is denied the choice of our ``free 
market'' system.
    Steven Stanley



MTC-00019896

From: Robert Kushner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Robert Kushner



MTC-00019897

From: Chris M. Bergeron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'd just like to voice my opinion against the current Microsoft 
settlement. Any action that does not significantly impair Microsoft 
from crushing further competition in the computer software and 
hardware markets will fail to encourage healthy competition and lead 
to the stagnation of said markets. Microsoft has engaged in 
exceedingly anti-competitive action and threatens to undercut 
developement. Recently, they purchased a good portion of the 
intellectual property of their only competitor in the 3D graphics 
field, SGI, and continue to flaunt there disregard for the US legal 
process and anti-monoply laws.
    The settlement, as it stands, is bad for every business in 
America except Microsoft, and bad for the American people.
    Thanks for your time,
    Chris Bergeron



MTC-00019898

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to voice my opinion regarding the Proposed 
Settlement with Microsoft. It would appear that this settlement will 
do more to encourage the practices that Microsoft has already been 
convicted. One of the problems that I find is that if I wanted to 
distribute any of the software that I have written, it will not be 
legal to run that software on any Window product because of their 
restrictions against using any software covered by many of the Open 
Source license. While Microsoft would lead you to believe that this 
software (Open Source) is ``Viral Software'' (a term used 
in their own literature), there are many machines running such 
software without any problems as described by Microsoft. This tactic 
is nothing more than Microsoft trying to instill FUD (or Fear, 
Uncertainty, and Doubt).
    Thank you for your time,
    Michael McGonagle
    7415 N Winchester, Apt 1
    Chicago, IL
    773 761 9879



MTC-00019899

From: Ross Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,


[[Page 26797]]


    I don't agree with the Microsoft Settlement. Microsoft has a 
monopoly on operating systems, and their current and future actions 
will enhance their strong-hold on the desktop operating system 
market. Competition in business is a key to capitalism, and while 
Microsoft competed to get to where they are, the current settlement 
proposal will help them keep their position, preventing smaller 
companies from fairly competing. Therefore, the current settlement 
should not be approved.
    thanks,
    Ross
    University of Pennsylvania student



MTC-00019900

From: Bob Kavanagh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    As a tech manager for a school system, I object to the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. It would seem to me 
that this settlement benefits Microsoft and harms its competitors. 
It would be better if Microsoft simply gave money or credits to 
schools that could be spent on any company1s products. Schools could 
then decide what is best for them. If Microsoft gives the schools 
Microsoft products, the schools are then more likely to continue to 
buy Microsoft products. How does this help limit the power of 
Microsoft?
    Thank you for not helping Microsoft continue its monopolistic 
practices.
    - Bob Kavanagh
    Tech Manager
    Sudbury Public Schools
    Sudbury, MA 01776
    1-978-443-1058 x249
    1-978-443-9001 fax



MTC-00019901

From: Zane Thomas
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Zane Thomas
POB 121
Indianola, WA 98342
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Zane Thomas



MTC-00019902

From: Nicolas Sterling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First, I must thank the DOJ for directing their energy toward 
Microsoft. I know it has been a hard battle. I am a software 
developer. I believe that Microsoft has seriously damaged the 
industry through its practices. What they did to undermine the 
Netscape browser and the Java platform are clear examples, but there 
are others. I understand that Microsoft deliberately changed OS APIs 
to break applications which competed with their own. And the NT 
operating system would have died on the vine for lack of 
applications, except that Microsoft threatened to withhold its 
Windows seal from Windows application vendors that did not also make 
the applications work on NT. As a result, NT does exist and is now 
beginning to compete with various Unix flavors primarily because of 
those very apps which were made to work on both operating systems.
    It is difficult for me to imagine what Microsoft would look like 
today without the accumulated benefits of their monopolistic 
practices, but I firmly believe that they would have a far smaller 
share of their markets, if any share at all. Other companies and 
products- perhaps whole new classes of products-would 
exist. Competition would have driven the market to produce better 
products, services, and prices for consumers. I suspect that the 
total damage done to consumers is far greater than the value of 
Microsoft itself.
    The settlement seems to be primarily about placing and enforcing 
restrictions on Microsoft to bring it into line-that is, not 
very punitive. Yet I think that Microsoft, through its practices, 
has committed an intellectual terrorism of huge proportions. I 
believe that harsh punishment is warranted, and that without such 
punishment they are in effect encouraged to carry out whatever 
monopolistic practices they can get away with, and accrue the 
benefits in terms of revenue, market share, and weakened competition 
until such time as they are forced to stop.
    I am concerned about Linux, which I believe to be a new target 
for Microsoft. I am also concerned about the emerging digital wallet 
arena. How can we expect Microsoft to behave, and how much damage 
with that cause?
    It is clearly impossible to completely undo the damage done by 
Microsoft. But they should be discouraged from repeating their 
abuses.
    Thank you for your time.
    Nicholas Sterling
    2507 Zambia Dr
    Cedar Park, TX 78613



MTC-00019903

From: Bonnie McCarter
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bonnie McCarter
252 N. Sparkman Blvd.
Tucson, AZ 85716-2244
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie McCarter



MTC-00019904

From: Don Oliver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:40pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    My name is Don Oliver. I have been an independent software 
developer since 1995. My business has suffered tremendously due to 
Microsoft's systematic anti-competive destruction of the Java(tm) 
market due its purposeful introduction of incompatibilities and 
illegal restrictive contracts with OEMs to prevent the distribution 
of the Netscape(tm) browser. I strongly object to the Proposed Final 
Judgement in its present form. I am not a lawyer, but within minutes 
I could see enough loopholes to skirt the intent and consequences of 
this settlement.


[[Page 26798]]


    First of all, it contains too much ambiguity, especially in the 
language describing the future operating system products that are 
named, and in the definitions of the ``middleware''.
    Secondly, it has no teeth in it. You are dealing with a company 
that has lied and used deception during the trial and has 
consistently ignored all previous orders in past consent decrees.
    I recommend that you consider at a minimum adopting the changes 
recommended by Dan Kegel, et. al. in their correspondence.
    Regards,
    Don Oliver
    DonnyWorld, Inc.
    ``We Deliver Community''(tm)
    279 East Central Street, Suite 140
    Franklin, MA 02038
    www.donnyworld.com
    Voice: 508-384-4166
    FAX: 508-384-8683



MTC-00019905

From: Todd Pringle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I would like to simply voice my strong objection to the current 
settlement on the table in the Microsoft antitrust suit. As a 
technology professional working at the company Microsoft made every 
effort to make disappear (with an exceedingly unfortunate level of 
success), I must say that I have witnessed firsthand the anti-
competitive efforts of the company.
    As the Product Manager for Netscape Navigator (although I have 
only been with the company a year and a half) I am constantly 
reminded of Microsoft's monopoly power in the way our current market 
share has declined and in the barriers we have to get our product in 
front of consumers. Ours is the quintessential case of how Microsoft 
squashes competition, and of course it laid the groundwork for the 
antitrust suit. Every day that we develop strategy and our products, 
we do so knowing that we are up against a competitor that simply 
doesn't play by the rules established by the law. Doesn't, hasn't, 
and with the current plan on the table, never will.
    Frankly Microsoft's monopolistic practices and its stranglehold 
on the operating system of 90%+ of the PCs delivered to consumers 
has become a bit of a joke in the technology industry. People simply 
joke about it, laugh it off, make sarcastic comments about it, and 
of course decide to try and do anything that Microsoft isn't doing 
or wouldn't be interested in. The tragedy of this is no joke 
however. The fact that some of the brightest, most innovative minds 
in the world have decided to capitulate-not compete, not 
innovate-speaks volumes about the negative effects of 
Microsoft's business practices. Those that do attempt to compete, 
such as us, simply bang our heads against the wall that is 
Microsoft's monopoly every day. This, I can assure you, is not fun. 
And it is most certainly not fair competition.
    I won't detail the list of anti competitive actions Microsoft 
has taken here, as you most certainly are more familiar with them 
than I by now. I will say that people, technology professionals in 
particular, have simply lost faith that the government will remedy 
the situation in any meaningful way. I urge you to prove otherwise.
    Thank you,
    Todd Pringle
    Product Manager
    Netscape/AOL Web Properties
    650.937.3917



MTC-00019906

From: Patrick J. Santucci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I write to express my opposition to the Proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft anti-trust case. There are a number of excellent 
reasons to fault the proposal, but chief amongst them to my mind is 
the narrow definition of both API and middleware in the proposed 
settlement. As written, trivial changes in application names and/or 
version numbers could permit Microsoft to continue thier exploitive 
practices without violating the letter of the settlement. Indeed, 
whole new applications and extensions of extant applications (such 
as MS Office) could be developed with the specific intnet of dodging 
the provisions of the settlement.
    The proposal as written will not impeded anticompetitive 
behavior by Microsoft, and thus does not serve the public good.
    Sincierly-
    Patrick J. Santucci



MTC-00019907

From: Bruce Hamilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is bad idea. The 
Proposed Final Judgment allows many exclusionary practices to 
continue, and does not take any direct measures to reduce the 
Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to the market.
    -Bruce (Bruce Hamilton, Redondo Beach, CA)
    [email protected]
    http://bhami.com/



MTC-00019908

From: Michael Weidlick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional and a consumer, I can't believe the 
DOJ is so willing to let Microsoft off with such a minimal 
punishment. Has anyone at Justice been watching how Microsoft has 
conducted business since the lawsuit began. There business practices 
are status quo at best and I think worse. They always seem to be 
``thumbing their nose'' at fair business practices. I 
think they should get the harshest possible punishment for their 
past and current actions.
    Michael Weidlick
    1209 Whispering Pines Court
    Creve Coeur, MO 63146
    314-469-6095



MTC-00019909

From: Thomas Hicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Gentlemen:
    As a Software Engineer with 27 years of experience, I abhor the 
proposed government settlement with Microsoft corporation. Microsoft 
has been unequivocally convicted of anti-trust operations in a U.S. 
court of law and should therefore should be punished in such a way 
as to discourage a repetition of its criminal behaviour. Instead, 
the DOJ is giving the company what amounts to a slap on the wrist 
and allowing it to continue (to this very moment) the unethical, 
immoral and ILLEGAL practices of which it has been convicted.
    In my opinion the proposed settlement does almost nothing 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''. 
This settlement is a sham and a disgrace and I urge you to reject 
it.
    -tom hicks
    4950 N. Via Entrada
    Tucson, AZ 85718



MTC-00019910

From: Richard Molpus
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement comment
    May it please the Court:
    I write in the matter of Microsoft v. US, the most visible 
Antitrust and Anti-Monopoly case that has been before the Courts and 
the Public since the actions against American Telephone and 
Telegraph (AT&T). I feel that the case is closer in importance 
to the Standard Oil Antitrust Case, in the similarities of economic 
and business influence, and the resistance of the Defendant to admit 
any form of wrongdoing in their aquisition and maintenance of 
Monopoly. ``The Federal Government is not bound by the Laws of 
the State of New Jersy'' might be redrafted as ``The 
Federal Government is not bound by a Shrink-Wrapped License''.
    I have been working with Hobby computing since 1975-I like 
to say since before Bill Gates had his first Million. I've watched 
as Microsoft began as an innovative company that worked in the 
fledgling industry to stay alive, then stayed at the forefront of 
cooperative growth by working with other companies to aid the spread 
of Personal computers.
    Microsoft, prior to the introduction of the IBM PC, cooperated 
with other companies in the nascent PC software and hardware 
industries to develop and apply standards in an evenhanded and equal 
fashion. Since no two hardware companies produced the exact same 
hardware, the task of creating a working system was 
difficult-and would have been impossible if the hardware and 
software companies had not been willing to ``reveal all'' 
to anyone who asked. System integrators; whether as commercial 
entities or as private hobbyists; refused to use products, whether 


[[Page 26799]]


Hardware or Software, that were ``Black Boxes''-sold 
with only the most trivial interfacing information.
    Things were primitive, to be sure, but the cooperation required, 
and provided between manufacturers and users, meant that the market 
leaders led due to the quality of their product, not the quality of 
their legal department. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and the other 
founders and employees of Microsoft did ``Bet the 
Company'' with the IBM PC. It was a completely new hardware and 
software combination-and since IBM provided very detailed 
plans for the hardware and software in the PC, no company had any 
initial advantage over any other except based on when the IBM 
specifications became available.
    Microsoft, however, was not so forthcoming about the details of 
their contribution to the PC Platform; While they were willing to 
sell MS-DOS for (comparative) pennies, they refused to provide any 
internal details of the inner operations and structure of MS-DOS 
(this also applies to IBMs'' PC-DOS, which was a simple 
relabeling and repackaging of the Microsoft code). Microsoft used 
it's total control of the MS-DOS platform to conceal what MS-DOS 
could do-keeping surprises hidden to allow 
``amazing'' improvements to establish or maintain market 
share.
    qBorland upstaged Microsoft by creating ``Sidekick'', 
the very popular accessory program that used 
``undocumented'' methods of using MS-DOS's internal 
capabilities to make Sidekick not a ``trespassor'' 
program, but an active part of MS-DOS itself. Borland, by the news 
stories of the day, had discovered how to link Sidekick into MS-DOS 
by private (very private) reverse engineering efforts to discover 
-how- MS-DOS worked internally. Microsoft had not 
revealed all of the link points (API Calls) of MS-DOS, and Borland's 
efforts surprised everyone-and (from the journalism of the 
day) enraged Microsoft. Borland was a notable competitor to 
Microsoft, since it offered several of the major programming 
languages of the day (Turbo Pascal, Turbo Basic, Turbo Assembler). 
Microsoft had to grin and be quiet.
    Other companies followed Borland's lead, sneaking looks into the 
guts of MS-DOS to provide all sorts of accessory tools and features, 
upstaging Microsoft's own offerings. Microsoft had learned an 
important lesson-Control of the API set meant control of the 
market.
    Later anecdotal stories demonstrate the way that Microsoft took 
the lessons of Sidekick to heart- ``Win3.1 isn't done 
till Lotus won't run'' being the most lyrical of the anecdotes. 
Lotus 123 was the main competitor to Microsofts'' own 
Spreadsheet, and the popular view was that microsoft wanted to 
provide it's own product with the competitive advantage of working 
better with windows 3.1 than Lotus's product.
    The old tradition of cooperative assistance between software and 
hardware vendors had ceased, especially since Microsoft provided 
both the Operating system (MS-DOS and Windows 3.x) and Commodity 
software (Microsoft Word, Excel, Money, Flight Simulator, Games, 
etc.). When MS Word for Windows 95 was introduced it had many 
special features that no other competitors had- float-on-top 
hints, special mouse options, and others. Lotus and Borland both 
groused in the media that Microsoft hadn't told them about any of 
the extra API's in Windows 95 that would allow such extras; 
Microsoft had used the secrecy that was natural to internal 
corporation communication to gain an advantage on it's competitors.
    Had Microsoft not been both a Operating Systems and Commodity 
Software company it would have never been able to hide such extra 
capabilities from the competition-if it was a OS company only, 
it would have sold the knowledge to any customer, if it was a 
commodity company only it would have had to create those additions 
by it's own research into the private workings of the Operating 
System.
    Like Standard Oil, which had control of both the Pipelines and 
the Refineries, Microsoft can use it's control of OS functions and 
commodity software functions to block the advancements of it's 
competitors and leverage the secrecy of it's internal communications 
to spring surprises on the world.
    Standard Oil could and did demand kickbacks from the Railroads 
based on the total oil shipments, and could manufacture shortages in 
a region by refusing to either send petroleum products to a market, 
or refusing to refine types of petroleum, keeping the strategies 
secret until the market was at its mercy.
    Microsoft can do the same-If it won't reveal what the OS 
can do, then no other company has a chance to bring extra 
capabilities to the market, and it can hide those extra functions in 
the OS to spring those extra features on the market at any time in 
it's own products.
    Standard Oil created a Monopoly in the Petroleum industry; 
whipsawing the market between it's control of distribution and 
production, controlling a slice of the economic world as it wished, 
for it's profit, heedless of the damage to the consumers. Standard 
Oil decided who got what grade of oil, grade of grease, grade of 
Gasoline, grade of anything petroleum-based. It could charge what it 
wanted, and the public be damned!
    Microsoft has similar powers; it allows the public-both 
the end users and the other software companies-to do only what 
it sees as proper, restricts the best and fanciest to its own 
products, can demand that it's customers do as it sees fit (cf. the 
Compaq reversal on offering Netscape as the default browser), and 
having no real competitors in the 80x86 PC OS market, can charge 
what it wants to ``guide'' the market.
    I am not any sort of expert in the law nor learned in the ways 
of legal argument; but I can see that the actions of Microsoft have 
limited the growth of the computer marketplace-It has such a 
control of the features and functions of the OS that it can start or 
stop developments in the software industry by 
``announcing'' or ``denying'' upcoming features 
of the Windows Operating system. It has used it's control the 
ownership of the OS to replace third party commodity software 
(WordPerfect, Lotus 123, Quattro Pro, Dbase, Netscape) with it's own 
products, shielding them from full force of competitive pressure and 
scrutiny by handcuffing it's products (Word, Excel, Internet 
Explorer, Access) to the sale of the Operating system.
    Microsoft, like Standard Oil, is so large that it can withstand 
any normal corrective force from the marketplace, short of a 
relevatory act of the size and style that has destroyed Enron, 
Microsoft has no real competitors; it is a 800 pound gorilla.
    However, Microsoft, like Standard Oil, is subject to the Law of 
the Land-and the Wagner and Sherman acts are written with a 
clear intent to make the Federal Government a 2000 Pound 
Gorilla- capable of rending any other beast into tiny pieces. 
The Legislatorss who wrote those acts lived in a business 
environment that was much more corrupt-openly and blatantly 
corrupt-than we live in now. They wrote with a broadness and a 
bluntness that was powered by their anger and disgust- 
intending to give the government a blunt-edged weapon that was never 
to be use with delicacy, but with a savage vigor to place eternal 
fear into the minds and hearts of businessmen or women who wished to 
create an Trust or Monopoly. I like many in the computer and 
Software Industry, have been alarmed by the delicate action of the 
Courts and the Prosecution; Having been bled by Microsoft in the 
past we desire its blood to splash in the gutters, running red on 
the paving stones.
    The USA benefited from the breakup of the Standard Oil Monopoly, 
Benefited from the breakup of the AT&T Monopoly (indeed, this 
message would not have been reaching this Court had the AT&T 
Monopoly not been broken), and will benefit from the dissolution of 
the Microsoft Monopoly. The secrets that Microsoft has hidden within 
Windows for it's sole profit will be available to all the software 
world, the competitors of Microsoft will be empowered, the market 
will be freed of a limiting boundary-one set by the desires of 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft can be divided into four separate 
entities-Operating Systems, Commodity Software, Computer 
Hardware, and Internet Services. An additional entity-to 
contain the research and theoretical efforts that Microsoft funds; 
much as Bell Labs was maintained as an entity when AT&T was 
divided; would be appropriate.
    Operating Systems would contain all the resources to maintain 
and expand the Windows operating system-but no Commodity, or 
Internet software. A benchmark for deciding what belongs in this 
company would be to examine what was included in the initial release 
of Windows 95- no Internet Explorer, no Microsoft Word, no 
Microsoft Works, no Microsoft Media Player. If Microsoft sells a 
piece of software as a separate item, or offers some form of extra-
cost add-on ``expansion'' to ``improve'' the 
capabilities of a ``integral part of the operating 
system'' then recognise that item for what it is-not an 
integral function of the OS but as a tacked-on piece of Commodity 
Software.
    Commodity Software would cover all the ``Office 
Software'', ``Back Office'', 
``Middleware'', ``Multimedia Support'', 
``Entertainment'' or ``Pig in the Pokesack'' 


[[Page 26800]]


software that Microsoft produces or sells. Wether it be the Encarta 
Library, Microsoft Streets mapping software, or Microsoft Word 
itself, Commodity Software gets the lot.
    Computer Hardware would be be responsible for such things as the 
Microsoft Mouse, Keyboard,.
    Multmedia hardware-anything not software with the 
Microsoft name. The Microsoft Press, which published guide books and 
texts about Microsoft products would also belong in this entity.
    Internet Services would get MSNBC, the Microsoft Network, 
Internet Explorer, Hotmail, anything that will not work without the 
use of of a TCP/IP stack. Microsofts new .NET efforts would belong 
to this entity.
    I ask that this Court order the separation of Microsoft into 
several separate components-each a fully separate company, 
free to succeed or fail based on the quality of it's product, not 
guaranteed life because of a monopoly or corruption of the 
marketplace.
    I thank the court for its time and attention.
    Richard Molpus
    [email protected]



MTC-00019911

From: Dain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good day,
    After having read the proposed settlement against Microsoft, I 
would like to voice my comments. I am not in favor of the proposed 
settlement as it stands and am strongly opposed to the current 
course of action.
    I have been a computer user and enthusiast for a number of years 
and have increasingly grown frustrated with the practices of 
Microsoft that I seem to keep running into. I feel cheated by the 
acceptance of the proposed settlement terms. I have listened to an 
explanation of the reasoning behind some of the proposals as well as 
read through them myself and there are many potentially good points 
that have been proposed, but the problem that I see the most is that 
a great damage has already been done by Microsoft.
    Even if their wrong doings are addressed for future practices, 
they still have unfairly dominated the software and operating system 
markets, and I don't see how companies they've engaged with will be 
compelled to alter their practices.
    As a computer user, every time I purchase a new computer I am 
forced by the manufacturer to pay for a Windows operating system, 
even though I already have multiple copies of the software that I 
have paid for and I don't want to install Microsoft Windows. I want 
to install the free Linux operating system.
    Even if Microsoft is prevented from forcing this practice on 
computer manufacturers in the future, what incentive is there for 
manufacturers to offer either no operating system or an alternative 
operating system. The manufacturers are so entrenched with Microsoft 
products that even hardware is becoming more arbitrary to Microsoft 
software and incompatible with anything else. This is a clear 
example of hurting consumers and the advancement of computing in the 
United States. Even if I am able to buy a computer without an 
operating system, or the operating system of my choice, I am not 
able to use a modem because nearly all computer manufacturers ship 
Winmodems, or software based modems that are controlled by Microsoft 
drivers and software. Even if you could buy a non-winmodem, you 
still couldn't use it because manufacturers have altered the slot 
architecture to only allow for PCI devices, which traditional modems 
cannot be installed in. I spent $100.00 for a modem in a new 
computer only to find that it will only work under Windows. If the 
source code were released then maybe someone could develop drivers 
to support these modems and other software, but as long as Microsoft 
continues to produce closed-source software the advancement of 
computing suffers. Even the advancement of Microsoft during fair 
practices suffers.
    I am currently a member of USENIX, the Advanced Computing 
Systems Association, and a member of SAGE, the System Administrators 
Guild.
    As such I am constantly involved in working with more powerful 
and reliable computer systems and software and become more and more 
hampered in my learning efforts by facing what seems like an army of 
software vendors, service providers, and businesses in the job 
market that pose roadblocks to universal computing standards because 
of Microsoft practices.
    I feel that Microsoft must not only refrain from future 
misconduct, but needs to repair the damage that it has already done 
to so many competitors. Giving away their software to children in 
schools is not a reparation but further promotion of a monopoly, and 
further indication of Microsoft's monopolistic intents.
    One operating system vendor offered to supply free software and 
support for as many computers as Microsoft could donate to schools 
and thereby substantially increase the number of computers schools 
would receive. This is exactly the type of remedy Microsoft should 
be engaged in to repair the market competition they have curtailed. 
If the telecommunications act of 1996 required incumbent local 
exchange carriers to open their networks and rights of way to 
competitive carriers, why shouldn't Microsoft be required to open 
the source code to its software and operating systems. I also think 
that Microsoft needs to be accountable for the software it does 
produce. You need a Department of Justice to read through all the 
disclaimers and legalese that comes with every Microsoft product.
    I have much more to say about these matters, but in appreciation 
of your time and consideration of my comments I'll end here. Thank 
you for your help and continued perseverance to protect the consumer 
and fair competition in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Dain G. Oswald
    503 N. Roosevelt Blvd. Apt A-324
    Falls Church, VA 22044 703-538-4550
    Member: USENIX
    Member: SAGE



MTC-00019912

From: Aron Insinga
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement of the case against 
Microsoft is far too weak. I do not believe that this settlement 
would have any substantial effect on their behavior. Time and again 
they have shown their disregard for the government and the court and 
the law: they circumvented a previous settlement by agreeing to 
limits on a product which they knew would soon be obsolete, they 
mocked court orders by releasing a non-functional product, they 
provided falsified video tape as evidence during their trial, etc.
    I believe that this proposed settlement relies far too much on 
Microsoft policing themselves and it is therefore seriously flawed. 
It does nothing to punish them for breaking the law, it does nothing 
to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains, it does nothing to end 
their monopoly of the desktop operating system, and it does nothing 
to prevent them from extending their monopoly into other areas, such 
as content. I find the later point quite disturbing.
    I do not believe that the operating system, the applications, 
and content should be controlled by the same company. I fear that, 
in the future, Microsoft will be able to continue to use their 
desktop operating system monopoly to prevent other applications from 
effectively competing against theirs, and they will then extend this 
new monopoly into content. I believe that this would be a serious 
threat to our freedom of the press. I believe that Bill Gates'' 
Corbis'' purchase of the Bettman Archive of most of the 20th 
century's historically important photojournalism is proof that they 
intend to take this direction. I also believe that their newer 
licensing terms which try to prevent people from using their 
products to criticize them is more proof of this threat to our 
freedom.
    In fact, I believe that the break-up of DuPont into DuPont, 
Hercules, and Atlas several decades ago is a good precedent and 
should be followed in this case. The explosives and chemical 
industry became much stronger and more innovative because of it. 
DuPont's monopoly of the gunpowder market had been both an economic 
burden on the government and a threat to national security since a 
single company controlled a resource critical to national defense.
    Microsoft's monopoly provides exactly the same threats to the 
government and the nation, for exactly the same reasons. The US Navy 
ship which had to be towed back to port because of a Windows/NT 
crash is enough proof to me of this threat.
    Therefore, I strongly urge you to reject the proposed settlement 
and impose a meaningful punishment and remedy, breaking Microsoft up 
into 3 independent companies: operating systems, applications, and 
content. Nothing less is an adequate punishment and can be as 
effectively implemented.
    Sincerely,
    Aron K. Insinga
    41 Dublin Ave.
    Nashua, NH 03063



MTC-00019913

From: David Eby


[[Page 26801]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I'm writing to voice my disapproval of the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft AntiTrust case. I feel that the proposed settlement 
does not adequately address their previous anticompetitive behavior 
nor will it in any serious way prevent such actions in the future. 
This company's management has shown that it will not act responsibly 
when holding a monopoly position in a market but will rather use 
that position to gain dominance over other market segments whenever 
possible.
    Microsoft fears that any substantial remedy will hinder their 
ability to innovate. This may be true, but you must keep in mind 
that Microsoft has caused far worse hinderance to legions of other 
software companies through its past illegal actions; innovation is 
not the exclusive domain of Microsoft. By implementing an adequate 
remedy, you allow true innovation to flourish.
    Respectfully yours,
    David Eby Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great 
gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with 
Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own 
FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://
webmail.netscape.com/



MTC-00019914

From: Uri Guttman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not in favor of the current settlement with Microsoft. As 
someone who has long term experience in the computing field (28 
years), I would like to point out the famoud BUNCH suit against IBM 
in the mid-1960's. IBM would announce a new system 2 years before it 
would be delivered and that would dry up sales for all the other 
computer vendors. Microsoft (among its many monopolistic actions) 
has used this vaporware technique many times.
    Also I have direct experience with their managerial duplicity. I 
was a senior software developer with a startup and Microsoft asked 
us for a proposal of a variant of our product. They even said it 
didn't have to use any of their software in it. We worked hard and 
delivered it to them. Two months later we finally got a converence 
call with them and they first asked us what they could do to make 
their software (which wasn't good to begin with) usable for our 
product. But even worse was their statement that they didn't buy 
paper proposals/projects even though they asked us for it. This cam 
from senior group managers and was obviously the way they did 
business. They only did this to pick our brains and had no intention 
of doing business with us.
    This is the kind of ingrained lack of ethics in this 
corporation. Any consent decree without serious teeth will be 
laughed at and skirted. Just look at the way they ignored the 
earlier decree about integrating their browser with their OS. By the 
way, the whole browser issue is a red herring. It is the way they 
purposely try to destroy other companies with vaporware 
announcements, lack of API documentation, changing their code to not 
work with accepted public standards, etc. that should be the crux of 
this case. I have nothing against strong competition but that 
implies a level field of some sort. Microsoft owns the playing field 
and has no business or ethical interest in leveling it. This is 
antitrust at its deepest fundamentals. This is what Teddy Roosevelt 
was fighting when he trust busted the robber barons of his day. The 
railroads and steel companies were also monopolies and use that 
power to control markets. This is what Microsoft wants and is always 
trying to do. It is up to the Justice Department and the state AG's 
to stop this now. Please do not accept this slap on the wrist 
agreement. Force them to make drastic changes in how they deal with 
the computing world and other businesses. They must not be allowed 
to abuse their monopoly power and ruin more companies, the internet 
and the computing industry in general.
    Thank you,
    Uri
    Uri Guttman
    [email protected]
    http://www.stemsystems.com



MTC-00019915

From: robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a BAD idea. 
It does little to open the market to competition.
    Robert Spotswood



MTC-00019917

From: Kinley Goodman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam;
    I feel that the success of Microsoft has been due to a superior 
product with effective marketing. I chose to purchase Microsoft 
products and I have chosen not to purchase products such as 
Netscape, etc. The successful marketing and a superior product does 
not constitute unfair business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Kinley C. Goodman



MTC-00019918

From: dsyates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a VERY bad idea.



MTC-00019919

From: John Faughnan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to register as someone objecting to the proposed 
settlement of the US DOJ case against Microsoft. I spend too many 
hours dealing with software problems related to Microsoft prodcuts. 
I would like the range of alternatives I experienced 10 years ago. 
There are no alternatives now, there is only Microsoft's monopoly 
power. They have abused that power. The produce some good products 
and some miserable products; the curse of the monopoly is that 
there's no alternative to their bad products. The remedies that have 
been suggested will not substantially alter Microsoft's capability 
to stifle competition.
    I would advocate:
    1. All Microsoft file formats must be published and made widely 
available. Changes will require agreement from the courts.
    2. A portion of Microsoft's revenue stream will be diverted to 
fund the development of alternative products that can use Microsoft 
file formats.
    John Faughnan
    1661 Wellesley Avenue
    Saint Paul, MN 55105-2007
    651-699-0920
    [email protected]
    I am a US citizen.



MTC-00019920

From: Will Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please register my opposition to the Proposed Final Judgment 
(PFJ) in United States vs. Microsoft. I believe that the PFJ in its 
current form is not strong enough to prevent Microsoft from still 
dominating the computer software and operating system business by 
anti-competitive business practices. We need a strong Final Judgment 
which causes Microsoft to compete fairly in an open marketplace 
where the best software (most stable, secure and featureful at a 
given price point) wins on merit.
    Problems with the current PFJ include:
    *The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    *The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.
    *The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    *The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product - but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    *The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, 
Pocket PC, or the X-Box- operating systems that all use the 
Win32 API and are advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
    *The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware-but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors 


[[Page 26802]]


from using this documentation to help make their operating systems 
compatible with Windows.
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents (which are arguably a 
document interchange standard today.)
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs.
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft (Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on Windows, 
and Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.)
    *Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even 
for computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once 
banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft (Microsoft has in the past inserted 
intentional incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from 
running on competing operating systems.)
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    *The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Microsoft needs to be restrained from continuing its'' 
anti-competitive practices it enjoys via its abuse of its'' 
monopoly position in the current marketplace. A stronger Proposed 
Final Judgment needs to be crafted to guard against Microsoft taking 
advantage of the weaknesses in the PFJ, and continuing 
``business as usual.'' Let Microsoft compete on a level 
playing field that would be established with a strong but fair Final 
Judgment, and let the free market decide their market share without 
Microsoft's ``hand on the scale.''
    Thank you,
    Willard D. Dennis
    209 Wiest School Road
    Reading, PA 19606



MTC-00019921

From: Tom Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I STRONGLY object to the Proposed Final Judgment in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. Mr. Gates and his attorneys must be 
deliriously happy with the current PFJ.
    I urge you to SERIOUSLY CONSIDER revising the PFJ to provide 
additional protection to American and worldwide users and businesses 
in this case. Users, both corporate and individual, of Microsoft 
products must have their freedom of choice protected. They must 
realistically be able to choose between products from Microsoft and 
other vendors and be reasonably certain that products they choose 
will run without artificial impediments placed in their path by 
Microsoft. Competing vendors, as well, must be protected against 
such artificial impediments to their software running under various 
incarnations of Windows operating systems or Windows environments on 
other operating systems. Each product should be able to stand on 
it's own without having Microsoft's artificial barriers in it's way. 
The manufacturer of any operating system should be required to 
publish the specifications to all of it's interfaces so that other 
software can be written to adhere to those specifications and 
successfully operate under control of that operating system.
    Please consider that the American Legal System is our only 
defense against Microsoft's goal of total control of the computer 
marketplace by whatever means. Do NOT abandon your duty to the 
American publicand to the rest of the world as well, since Microsoft 
is an American company.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Brown
    [email protected]



MTC-00019922

From: Damien Sorresso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing you, the United States Department of Justice, to 
express my extreme dissatisfaction at the ``settlement'' 
that the Department of Justice has reached with Microsoft. I feel 
that, as a registered voter and American, my voice should be heard. 
I have sent this E-mail before to you, the Department of Justice, 
and I send it again (albeit revised) for emphasis on how I feel 
about this subject.
    Microsoft was ruled to be an illegal monopoly. It's settlement 
with the Department of Justice does not take even the smallest 
amount of what are, in my opinion, requisite actions against 
Microsoft to ensure that it does not tighten its stranglehold of the 
computing industry. The new settlement, unlike the one proposed by 
Judge Jackson, does not require Microsoft to disclose its API's to 
third parties anymore. Section J1:
    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 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. Section a allows 
Microsoft to get around disclosing API's and other information by 
claiming that its security is threatened. This allows Microsoft to 
continue its closed, monopolistic way of setting new 
``standards'' in the computing industry. This settlement 
will not change anything at all.
    Section b offers Microsoft government protection for its 
monopolistic acts. It allows for Microsoft's non-disclosure to be 
enforced by the government. This is totally unacceptable. Microsoft 
has been ruled a monopoly, and these terms seem more like the 
government wants to protect Microsoft's monopoly, rather than doing 
what it should and break it up.
    In spite of the fact that it has been ruled a monopoly, 
Microsoft continues monopolistic and domination-like actions. I 
shall list some recent actions taken by Microsoft that belie its 
monopolistic nature:
    1: Upon opening the new MSN website, users of the Opera web 
browser were unable to view the site. Users of Opera were directed 
to ``upgrade'' to Microsoft's own Internet Explorer web 
browser to properly view the content. Microsoft, when questioned 
about the incompatibility, accused Opera of being non-compliant with 
the XML standard specifications. Opera immediately shot back that 
they prided their web browser on standards compliancy, and submitted 
an XML standard test of MSN that showed it to not be compliant with 
the XML standard specifications, thus identifying MSN as the 
culprit. Microsoft then fixes the problem so that MSN could be 
viewed by other browsers. Had Opera not made public MSN's non-
compliance to the XML standard, Microsoft's attempt to coerce users 
of Opera into using Internet Explorer would have gone unnoticed. 
Microsoft has no shame in continuing it attempts to dominate the 
internet.
    2: Windows XP and the latest version of Internet Explorer do not 
ship with Java support. Java is one of the key components for the 
internet, because it works with every operating system that can run 
a Java Virtual Machine. Why would Microsoft not want to support this 
standard? Because it is a roadblock in Microsoft's attempts to 
saturate the internet with Microsoft-only standards and products. 
Java works with every operating system, and Microsoft is attempting 
to replace it with a Windows-only standard that would force any 
desiring to be on the internet to buy a Windows PC, rather than a 
Macintosh or Linux machine.
    3: Microsoft's proposed security procedures are based on 
``security through obscurity.'' Microsoft disallows the 
publication of any security holes than may be found in its operating 
systems or applications for at least 30 days after the said hole was 
found. Even then, security companies are only allowed to release 
very general information that is not helpful to system 
administrators wishing to develop a temporary work-around for the 
problem while Microsoft works on a patch that fixes the hole. The 
fundamental problem with this approach is that it leaves the 
security hole completely open and unguarded for a period of one 
month. Microsoft is essentially taking the chance that no rogue 
hackers will discover the flaw and exploit it in 30 days. After 
making the public aware of the problem after 30 days, system 
administrators must 


[[Page 26803]]


wait for Microsoft to release a patch. The 
public release of information cannot contain the information 
required to exploit the security hole, so system administrators 
cannot test the problem on their own networks, nor can they isolate 
and deactivate the part of the network that is flawed. For most 
companies, this means an indeterminate time of over one month in 
which their network is vulnerable if it is running Microsoft 
software as its backbone. Taking the network offline is simply not 
an option in today's e-commerce-based industry. Microsoft is willing 
to take the risk that no one else will discover the security whole 
within at least 30 days and figure out how to exploit it while 
system administrators sit helplessly, devoid of the requisite 
knowledge to protect against a security breach. This is not 
Microsoft's chance to take. They want this new 
``security'' method because it involves the least 
disclosure of how the Windows OS works.
    Of course, many may say that the alternative is to simply use 
Linux or UNIX in place of Microsoft's software. However, Microsoft 
already has enough of a presence in business networks that a 
transition to Linux would cost a great deal in the short-term in the 
purchase of new servers and the training or hiring of certified and 
UNIX-knowledgeable network administrators to replace
    MCSE-certified ones. While a large company like IBM can (and 
has) make this transition without worrying about cost in the short 
term, the large number of startup companies that have sprung up that 
are using Microsoft's products do not have this option due to lack 
of revenue and sales. They must use the money they have to maintain 
their existing network and pay Microsoft outrageous licensing fees.
    4: Microsoft is now beginning to try and extend its influence 
and power to every aspect of the technology market. The recent 
release of the X-Box to the game console market, coupled with the 
development of Windows Media Video and the desired presence of the 
Windows Media Audio format on copy-protected Compact Discs, should 
be enough to show that Microsoft is not satisfied with mere 
domination of the computer operating system market. Microsoft has 
made certain that the Windows Media formats work acceptably only on 
Windows machines. Windows Media Player for the Mac OS is slow and 
virtually useless, and there is no Linux version. What point would 
there be in using valuable resources on writing video and audio 
programs and codecs that don't work well on any other platform? To 
extend their influence into all areas of the internet. Microsoft 
wants to make sure that, in order to experience the internet, one 
must have Windows on his or her machine. Java, a multi-platform 
technology, is a part of the internet, and they would like to 
supplant that. QuickTime and Real Media, both multi-platform video 
formats, are integral parts of internet media that Microsoft wants 
to replace with the single-platform Windows Media. Apache, a multi-
platform web server, they wish to replace with IIS, which only runs 
on Windows. If Microsoft were truly only interested in innovating 
and making a better product, these technologies would not be single-
platform. They wish to impose their closed-standard and secretive 
approach on any technology market that they can.
    5: Microsoft continues to write new ``standards'' for 
the computing industry that conveniently only work with its 
operating systems, instead of embracing real standards. Real 
standards are written by committees which openly-publish their work 
so that anyone can use it. The Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) 
writes the MPEG standard for the industry, and any wishing to comply 
with this standard can obtain a license and make it work with any 
operating system or media player. Microsoft's standards are not 
available to the public, and they can only be used by Microsoft 
products. Instead of the open Apache web server, they use their 
proprietary Internet Information Services product. It is impossible 
to set up a terminal server on a Windows machine without purchasing 
an add-on package that uses a closed standard instead of telnet or 
ssh. All Linux distributions and Mac OS X come with built-in support 
for these open and accepted standards.
    Microsoft is a monopoly and should receive harsher penalties, 
such as a break-up or forced-disclosure of the source code for 
Windows. Private organizations should not be able to bully the 
government into protecting their monopolies and have the government 
passively approve of such bullying tactics against other companies 
that offer even the smallest bit of competition.
    Please know I desire harsher penalties for Microsoft, and I 
support any reasonable action taken in seeking these penalties.
    Damien Sorresso



MTC-00019923

From: Scott Busby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement with microsoft is a bad idea. 
As a professional in the computer field, I have seen firsthand how 
Microsofts monopolistic business practices have stifled the computer 
software industry.
    I believe that a much more strict ruling is necessary to prevent 
further abuses from Microsoft. Scott Busby 1472 Garcia Drive San 
Luis Obispo, CA 93405



MTC-00019924

From: Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I am not an American citizen, I am disturbed by your 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. I believe it would aid the 
extension of their monopoly into even more arenas rather than 
contain it, and that this will adversely affect competition in 
several fields, not to mention all people that use computers or the 
internet. What happened to the evidence you had? Did your computers 
all crash? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
    Richard Hasan
    Take out the MAPS



MTC-00019925

From: Clarissa Eastham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end the Microsoft case!
    I worked for a competitor to Microsoft for many years and I 
still think the case was completely inappropriate. Note that:
    * Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer 
icon from the desktop.
    * Microsoft has been critical to the growth of the High Tech 
industry and this case is terrible precedent for the future, not 
only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations 
in the most dynamic industry the world has ever seen
    The case against Microsoft is just ``welfare'' for 
Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel going to 
those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the computer user Please close 
the case and let Microsoft continue their work and let the Justice 
Department focus on more important issues like prosecuting 
terrorists and investigating Enron.
    Thank you for your consideration!
    Clarissa Eastham
    Software Engineering Manager
    2054 Lockhart Gulch Rd.
    Scotts Valley, CA 95066
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019926

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Settlement is a BAD idea and will help nothing.
    Please do not let it go forward!



MTC-00019927

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I don't agree to the proposed settlement of Microsoft 
Corporation business practices. Vehemently so.
    Microsoft Corporation, like an unruly child, must be punished 
for its actions were fully pre-meditated and planned. To leave 
Microsoft Corporation without having suffered proper discipline 
leaves them, again like an unruly child, without any form of censor 
or control upon further actions in the same vein. Common sense 
dictates not a draconian but a just discipline so that Microsoft 
Corporation will learn the error of its ways. Further justice will 
have been served, the people will have been served and 
computerization will be allowed to advance freely in an open 
marketplace to the benefit of us all.
    Cordially,
    Eugene Bartley
    524 Idlewood Drive
    Salisbury, NC 28144
    704 797-9367



MTC-00019928

From: David Bushnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The US Department of Justice's proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case does not adequately address the illegal


[[Page 26804]]


practices which Microsoft has been found guilty of. It does not 
punish past violations. It does little to prevent reoccurrence of 
Microsoft's past patterns of illegal behavior. It does not provide 
for effective enforcement of decisions preventing future violations. 
It excludes not-for-profit organizations from some of its remedies. 
And it does not provide any effective encouragement of competition 
in the markets for operating system and applications software. I am 
therefore opposed to the agreement as it now stands and believe that 
an effective remedy would require additional elements, as described 
below.
    (1) Any solution should be available to both for-profit and not- 
for-profit organizations or groups. For example, SAMBA is a piece of 
software that is widely used to share files between Microsoft 
Windows and other operating systems, such as UNIX.
    Its existence is completely dependent on knowledge of the 
Microsoft's APIs and protocols. But it has not been developed by a 
for-profit business-it is freely available to anyone using the 
Internet. If the final solution in this case applies only to for-
profit businesses, SAMBA's continued existence would be in jeopardy. 
The same situation applies to most other not-for-profit software.
    (2) Any solution should apply not just to illegal behavior with 
regard to existing products and categories of products, but to 
future ones as well. For example, an effective remedy should prevent 
Microsoft from extending its past illegal behavior to new products 
such as its ``.NET'' proposal for Internet services.
    (3) All APIs, file formats, and communication mechanisms (for 
example, network protocols) should be made public in ways and times 
that allow other companies or not-for-profit groups to effectively 
compete.
    (4) The information made available in (3) above must include 
information about authorization and authentication APIs and 
protocols. Any Microsoft product involving the Internet will require 
outside programs to identify themselves as valid users of the 
system. Those programs will not be able to do this if they do not 
have access to the appropriate security APIs. (Since this disclosure 
requirement refers to the APIs and protocols, not their 
implementations, it preserves the ability to compete without 
sacrificing security requirements.)
    (5) Competitors'' use of published APIs, file formats, 
communication protocols must not be restricted by patents, 
copyrights, trade secrets, etc.
    (6) Any solution should allow effective enforcement in a timely 
manner. In particular, it will be completely ineffective if 
disagreements between Microsoft and the proposed ``Technical 
Committee'' must be resolved by court cases similar to this 
one. Microsoft's illegal behavior will not be prevented by court 
cases that last for years and are only resolved after the 
competitors involved have been marginalized or driven out of 
business.
    David Bushnell
    [email protected]



MTC-00019929

From: Ryan M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop this.
    The proposed settlement is a BAD idea.
    The reasons why have been clearly stated.
    The PFJ is MISLEADING, NOT PRECISE, and does not take windows-
compatible competing operating systems in to account.
    Please do NOT let this happen,
    RMansager,



MTC-00019930

From: Chris Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea.
    Chris Hansen
    [email protected]



MTC-00019931

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:49pm
Subject: No Subject
    V. Termination
    A. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment 
will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by 
the Court.
    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.
    5 years? Be realistic, 10 years and if the terms of the 
agreement are in any way violated, the penalty is automatic, break 
up Microsoft. And while you're at it take a serious look at AOL/Time 
Warner and their business practices.
    Kevin Burgjohann



MTC-00019932

From: msmclaug@midway. uchicago.edu@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft antitrust case settlement does little to 
remedy Microsoft's continuing abuses of monopoly power, and what 
remedies it does have are specific in scope and have several 
loopholes. Its enforcement mechanism is also quite weak, giving 
Microsoft a strong say in the makeup of its own watchdog body. In 
addition to inadequetly addressing past abuses, the settlement does 
little to prevent current or future abuses. The software industry is 
a rapidly changing environment, and new software and strategies such 
as Windows XP and .NET do now or seem likely to in the future employ 
practices abusing Microsoft's monopoly which are not covered in the 
terms of the proposed settlement. The settlement as it is would 
constitute a small slap on the wrist, and some curbs on illegal 
practices, leaving Microsoft free to continue its illegal pattern of 
behavior in other areas of business, while it can use loopholes and 
lax enforcement to continue doing what it has done in the past to a 
large extent.
    I strongly reccomend that the proposed settlement be rejected.
    Sincerely,
    Mike McLaughlin
    1067 Plowshare Rd.
    Blue Bell, PA 19422



MTC-00019933

From: Jamie Marx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00019934

From: raceware
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What a travesty of justice! Microsoft is caught red-handed using 
monopolistic strong-arm tactics to eliminate any competition and the 
DOJ let's them off without even a slap on the wrist. You people 
should be ashamed to walk the streets in daylight... Hell MS has 
admitted to dumping the Win2000 O/S into the marketplace with 63,000 
KNOWN BUGS, i.e., software defects, as in ``ONLY'' 10,000 
of these BUGS are known to cause system crashes and loss of data !
    HELLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOO is anybody home at the DOJ and FTC ???? Do 
you need a 2 x 4 along side your head to understand the cost to all 
consumers when you let MS use Mafia tactics to eliminate 
competition. Time to get a conscience and a grip on reality folks 
because the people you're pissin'' off are the people who vote 
at election time. Know what that means???
    Kind regards,
    Randy Hubbard
    Race-Tech Engineering, Inc.



MTC-00019935

From: Jennifer S. Bohmbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing regarding my concern that the current Microsoft 
settlement is ineffective against a corporation that has been 
abusive of its monopolistic power. This settlement does not do 
enough to encourage Microsoft to change behavior and it does in fact 
show the company that there are virtually no consequences to the 
many wrongs they have been found guilty of.
    The Proposed Final Judgment allows many exclusionary practices 
to continue. I see no reason this will discourage this company from 
contiuing in these practices. If there is no consequence for a 
company with this much power, behavior will not change. Also, no 
direct measures to reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by 
new entrants to the market. This is not allowed in other industries 
across this great country, why should Microsoft be immune? America 
is about competition.
    Jennifer S. Bohmbach
    Concerned Internet Professional and Citizen


[[Page 26805]]


    3913 15th Avenue South
    Minneapolis, MN 55407
    Language is a virus...Visualize IT!



MTC-00019936

From: Jon Loveall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I truly believe that the settlement talked about in the 
Microsoft vs. Department of Justice case will not only fail to 
achieve the goal for which this case began (namely the introduction 
of competition into a market where Microsoft has sucessfully 
extinguished any competitor through the use of its monopoly power). 
The settlement agreed to and posted for United States citizens to 
view is severly lacking in ability to complete the task for which it 
was created. After reading the document it would appear as though 
not only has the Department of Justice failed to apply any relavent 
changes to Microsoft's behavior, but through the wording it seems as 
though the US government will legalize Microsoft's behavior allowing 
them to legaly monopolize the computing industry where as before 
they were doing it illegaly. This settlement should not stand, 
simply dropping the case would be more benificial to the industry 
than agreeing to this settlement. Please don't settle with this, 
continue on in your case. Infomation Technology workers like myself 
are willing to wait to see fairness in this industry put into place. 
Thank You.
    Jonathan Loveall



MTC-00019937

From: Brian Craft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Craft
    Registered Linux User # 210286
    Linux Registered machine: 97873
    Yahoo Instant Messenger ID: bcraft67
    ICQ id: 129672292
    Linux......the OS of Choice!



MTC-00019938

From: Rebecca Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement.
    Regards,
    Rebecca Ward,
    Belmont, CA



MTC-00019939

From: Lindsay Pallickal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly against the current proposed settlement for this 
case. There are good ideas in the settlement, particularly the 
requirment for Microsoft to open up their standards to the 
world-but in other parts, as most people full well know, there 
are loopholes that would make it trivial for them to avoid doing 
this. Below are my thoughts on what needs to be done.
    As earlier judgements have shown, Microsoft has had a history of 
bullying out competitors with nasty business practices and when that 
fails, playing dirty with software compatibility. An few examples 
are the open Kerberos specification Microsoft recently picked up, 
the unix Samba service and Caldera's Dr. DOS. Dr. DOS took a 
thorough assault from intentional incompatiblities Microsoft 
introduced into Windows 3.1 and Samba is a major unix<-
>windows interoperatbility tool that is finding it increasing 
difficult to keep up with changing secret Microsoft specifications. 
It is clear that Microsoft is taking full advantage of the monopoly 
position the proprietary Windows system has to extend it's way into 
new marketplaces and lock users into Microsoft products. Their 
primary tool to do this is secret standards that prevent other 
sources from creating products that are compatible with Windows. 
What I propose is an *enforceable*- *enforceable* -
*enforceable* penalty that forces Microsoft to open up the internals 
of it's operating system. Not the source code, but information on 
how the different parts of Windows communicates internally and the 
protocols with which Windows machines communicate across networks. 
Microsoft should also make it possible for independant developers to 
communicate with Windows in the same way Microsoft's own code does. 
This would prevent any more casualties in what many call Microsoft's 
``embrace and extend'' war and would offer the benefit of 
new competition by destroying the unbearable artificials costs of 
entry and survival in this market that Microsoft has kept off-limits 
through incompatibility. They should have to produce this 
information in a timely manner-say one month for existing 
specifications and also provide advanced release of new 
specifications before a Microsoft product update. This way, when 
they do make changes to try and subvert a competitor's product, that 
competitor will be able to update and remain compatible. This is key 
to any effective judgement, especially the enforceablity part!
    Sincerly,
    Lindsay K. Pallickal



MTC-00019940

From: S. Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is absurd! Microsoft has engaged in practices 
that should make even the stauchest laissez-faire economist cringe! 
Microsoft has ruined the competitiveness of the computer sotfware 
market, adn hardware is not far behind. Microsoft needs to be 
punished a lot more for what it did! Harsher settlement please!!
    -S. Cooper



MTC-00019941

From: Mark Reuter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Mark S. Reuter
    3531 Madera Place
    Oxnard, CA 93033
    [email protected]



MTC-00019942

From: Eric Heins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:54pm


[[Page 26806]]


Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Microsoft Settlement.
    Eric Heins
    Austin, TX



MTC-00019943

From: Josh Mayers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Honorable Renata B. Hesse:
    The proposed final judgement is extremely flawed, and does not 
sufficiently address Microsoft's illegal an monopolistic behavior. 
Many people assuredly have written to you about this same issue; 
I'll not repeat their arguments, as I agree with those available 
online at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html and http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
    The proposed settlement is insufficient to prevent Microsoft 
from putting other companies unfairly out of business and further 
violating antitrust laws. Please reconsider the proposal, to include 
full release of API documentation to ISVs, prohibition of more 
practices against OEMs and ISVs, and prohibitions against 
monopolistic actions against end users (``desktops''). 
Again in this area, I agree with the full document online at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#fix.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Josh Mayers



MTC-00019944

From: John S. J. Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. While I agree with the problems identified in 
Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), I choose to focus on only a specific problem, and to 
present my objections in my own words.
    My primary objection with the proposed settlement is that, 
despite the finding that Microsoft had engaged in monopolistic 
practices, the proposed settlement offers no relief to those 
affected-either other corporations or individual consumers. 
Additionally, in my professional opinion, the proposed settlement 
contains no measures that would provide a realistic deterrent 
against Microsoft engaging in the same sorts of anti-competitive, 
monopolistic behavior in the future. Indeed, I believe that several 
features in their new ``Windows XP'' operating system are 
designed with specific anti-competitive goals in mind.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Respectfully,
    John S J Anderson, Ph. D.
    Editor, genehack weblog (genehack.org)
    Linux Systems Administrator, NCBI/NLM/NIH



MTC-00019945

From: 3-Dream Imaging
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has continually and relentlessly squelched 
competition. No one company should ever be allowed to become that 
large.
    Ted Maynard
    Milford, Connecticut



MTC-00019946

From: R.W. Sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/23 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Force MS to release Competing OS Apps 
before their Own Outllok 2001 is require for Macs to coexist w/ PC's 
in company that base their communication on Exchange Server.
    The current version of Outlook 2001 for Mac OS 9 is buggy. Apple 
is attempting to transition customers to OS X. By delaying or 
canceling the release of an OS X native version of Mac Exchange 
client, MS serves a blow against the adoption of Apple's Mac OS X 
(Unix) operating system.
    Here is yet another way MS jerks around the competition... 
http://www.thinksecret.com/features/outlookx.html Mac OS X-
compatible release of Microsoft Outlook unlikely By Nick dePlume, 
Publisher and Editor in Chief The release of Mac Outlook 2001 last 
year was a milestone for both Apple and Microsoft, bringing the Mac 
version of the corporate messaging/PIM application up to par and 
improving Apple's push in business environments using Exchange 
servers.
    Last July, as the company was rushing to carbonize Office for 
Mac, Think Secret learned from Microsoft insiders that an OS X-
native release of Outlook was very unlikely, largely because of the 
amount of time and resources it would require. A source on the show 
floor of Macworld Expo/San Francisco earlier this month confirmed 
those reports, saying that the company will rely on the Entourage 
component of Office to satisfy the corporate email gap, even though 
Entourage cannot work as an Exchange client like Outlook.
    The initial release of Outlook 2001 included full compatibility 
with Exchange servers and a Mac-like interface.



MTC-00019947

From: David Acklam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``proposed settlement'' does little to nothing to 
correct Microsoft's ability to abuse their monopoly position, 
specifically their desktop operating system and productivity 
software monopoly. It does not prevent them from running competitors 
out of business by bundling software into the OS, or (more 
importantly) do anything to encourage competition. Microsoft's 
product quality is, to put it mildly, abysmal-and without 
serious competition in many areas, there is no motivation for them 
to improve. Even in areas where they lack market dominance (such as 
large network servers), they are able to leverage monopoly power 
from other areas and achieve similar effects as if they were 
dominant in these areas too. As for counter-arguments, the most 
common one is that ``Microsoft's monopoly is good for consumers 
because it gives them product compatibility''. The largest 
flaws in this argument are that product compatibility can easily be 
achieved *by* competition (just look at the PC hardware industry, 
which has maintained compatibilty without monopoly meddling), and 
that Microsoft does not use their power to provide compatibility, 
but rather harms consumers through planned incompatibility (by 
breaking older software to force upgrades).
    Whatever Judge Jackson's actions, his initial remedy fit much 
better-at the very least, the ``settlement'' should 
follow the lines of what the 9 non-settling states are proposing! 
That at least has a chance!



MTC-00019948

From: James Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I have been opposed to the case brought against 
Microsoft from the beginning. The case has not been about what's 
best for consumers, but how companies that failed completely to 
innovate and meet consumer demands can now make money off 
Microsoft's absolute success.
    The Proposed Settlement in this case reaches far beyond any 
limits that should be placed on Microsoft (and by proxy all 
innovative and competitive companies). Given that it's unlikely for 
the government to seek dismissal of the complaint and apologize to 
the American consumers and tax payers for wasting our money in this 
pursuit, I feel that I must voice my support for the Proposed 
Settlement as it at least limits the further harm that comes to me 
as a consumer.
    -James Morris



MTC-00019949

From: Mitchell Tasman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am submitting this e-mail in response to your solicitation of 
public comment on the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    I believe that the settlement, as currently drafted, is wholly 
inadequate, and would not serve the public interest.
    Given Microsoft's position as a monopoly provider of operating 
systems, it is critical that all external communications protocols 
be documented, and available for implementation in any competing 
operating system, INCLUDING especially ``freely licensed'' 
software such as Linux or FreeBSD.
    One way that Microsoft maintains its monopoly is by tieing its 
product suite together via proprietary external communications 
protocols. For example, a 


[[Page 26807]]


Microsoft desktop operating system may 
only work, or only work well, when communicating with a Microsoft 
server operating system, and vice-versa. A Microsoft web browser may 
only work, or only work well, when communicating with a Microsoft 
web server.
    A Microsoft mail client may only work well when communicating 
with a Microsoft mail server. And further, Microsoft might choose to 
withold components such as a web browser or a mail client from 
competing (e.g., freely licensed) operating systems. If the external 
communications protocols remain proprietary, then it is impossible, 
or at best impractical, for third parties to create compatible 
applications that run on competing operating systems.
    I believe that any settlement must include the following two 
protections:
    1. Microsoft must document any and all external communications 
protocols, including those between client and server operating 
systems, and also those between client and server applications, and 
make this documentation publicly available.
    2. Microsoft must allow these protocols to be implemented by 
third parties, without threat of litigation or assertion of 
intellectual property rights. Without these protections, it will be 
impossible for freely licensed operating systems such as Linux and 
FreeBSD (or anyone else) to have a chance of competing with the 
Microsoft monopoly. I would suggest a third protection as a means to 
ensure ongoing compliance:
    3. Microsoft or a third-party must create a reference 
implementation based on the documented communications protocols, and 
make the resulting source code freely and publicly available. If 
this reference implementation is shown to be incompatible with the 
documented communications protocols, Microsoft shall be required to 
either: a. identify the programming errors in the reference 
implementation that are causing the incompatibility. b. OR if the 
documentation is in error, Microsoft must publish corrected 
documentation.
    This compliance process would iterate, until it was eventually 
shown possible to create a third-party implementation that 
interoperates with the monopoly Microsoft products. Of course, the 
documentation, and thence the reference implementation, would need 
to be updated as Microsoft releases new products, and new versions 
of existing products.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Mitchell Tasman, Ph.D.



MTC-00019950

From: Garrett McWilliams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division:
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. There are several 
reasons why I do not support the proposal:
    Firstly, the punishment is inadequate. By not pursuing a 
modification of the corporate structure, and by leaving gaping 
loopholes in the requirements for opening the Windows API, the 
Department of Justice effectively slaps Microsoft's wrist. Because 
of Microsoft's position in our society as the monopoly provider of 
the basis for most of our personal and business computing, it is 
gravely important that they not be considered above the anti-trust 
laws or deserving of softened treatment. The situation we find 
ourselves in now is almost exactly why these laws were enacted, the 
only difference being the industries in question. It has been proven 
that Microsoft has intentionally broken some of the laws that 
regulate our capitalist system. These laws exist for important 
reasons, and their power, as a deterrent if nothing else, is 
undermined by this proposed settlement.
    Secondly, the expectation of Microsoft to practice good-faith 
self-restraint is unreasonable. They have been found guilty of 
breaking the law, and, referring back to my first statement, are 
being shown that the penalties for such actions are mild. Would it 
really be reasonable to expect their behavior to change under such 
circumstances? It is clear from the features of the newly released 
operating system, Windows XP, and the .NET initiative, that this 
expectation is in fact not reasonable. I hope that the Department of 
Justice will reconsider the proposed settlement in light of these 
points, and the many objections raised by others. Effective changes 
would include changing the API disclosure requirements so as not to 
allow Microsoft to discriminate against Open Source developers, 
closing loopholes in the interoperability requirements, and 
requiring divestiture of technology developed as a result of past 
illegal monopolistic business practices. It would be a shame for 
Microsoft's wealth and power to enable it to escape appropriate 
punishment for its misbehavior and an effective deterrent for future 
illegal actions.
    Sincerely,
    James Garrett McWilliams,
    College Park, MD;
    Electrical Engineer



MTC-00019951

From: Gerald Hartig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It gives the monopoly of 
Microsoft free reign to continue to do whatever it wants through 
(now) governmentally sanctioned anti-competitive behaviour.
    The settlment needs to go far further to disrupt and control the 
Microsoft monopoly. The Proposed Final Judgment as written allows 
and encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, 
would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest.
    It should not be adopted without substantial revision to address 
these problems.
    John Campbell



MTC-00019952

From: chris cobb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Government 
clearly demonstrates what Microsoft says behind your backs and 
justifies the pompous attitudes of it's executives.
    Namely, that the people at Microsoft are dramatically smarter 
and more capable than the government and you in particular. However 
it has happened (the behind the scenes details are probably a joke), 
the Government has proposed/accepted/been-duped into a pathetic 
excuse for an agreement which will do nothing to either punish or 
prevent the actions that got Microsoft this far and destroyed so 
many of it's competitors. Microsoft has gotten everything they 
wanted and you have swallowed it whole. If this settlement goes 
through then you deserve Microsoft's ridicule. In it's present form, 
this settlement is a *LONG* way from accomplishing anything useful 
towards improving the computer industry. Some problems with this 
settlement (which I feel almost ashamed to point out because you 
should know them and this ``settlement'' should not even 
exist) are that:
    1) There is no significant punishment to MS for their past 
actions.
    2) The loopholes and various qualifying sections of the 
settlement are *huge* and have been specifically crafted by MS to 
ultimately nullify any controls you think you will have on their 
future business.
    3) There are no terms in the settlement which will significantly 
help those who are trying to compete with MS and break their hold on 
the market. I could go on and on, but there are numerous other 
articles written with sound advice on the problems I have mentioned 
and ways to correct them. I/We are only hoping that you read them 
and do the right thing instead of allowing this joke of a settlement 
to become fixed into history. To do so would reduce the sum total of 
your contribution to this country, the companies who so injuriously 
were harmed by Microsoft, and the people who spent years of their 
lives bringing the case to this level.
    Basically, I ask that you care and do the right thing: Reject 
this settlement, dismiss the people who brought it about, forget 
about settling (Microsoft will NEVER settle this with any terms that 
truely hurt them), and take it to a decision of the court.
Chris Cobb
US Citizen/Computer Engineer
121 S. Swall Dr, #105
Los Angeles, CA 90048



MTC-00019953

From: Scott Moffet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a very bad idea.



MTC-00019954

From: Heather and Erik Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement


[[Page 26808]]


    To Whom it May Concern:
    Please keep in mind with respect to Microsoft's Windows 
operating systems that we are really not talking about an 
``operating system'' anymore. Windows has become an 
application bundle. Time and time again Microsoft has incorporated 
applications into Windows to edge out or crush their competition. An 
operating system is designed to operate your computer, i.e. to let 
the peripherals communicate with the CPU to perform desired tasks. 
It does not consist of a media player, a web browser, an e-mail 
client, an instant messaging application, etc. Those services are 
applications. Currently, what is stopping Microsoft from 
incorporating Word, Excel, and Powerpoint into Windows and simply 
calling those applications ``new features?''
    Any settlement which allows Microsoft to increase their market 
share or not hinder their ability to bundle applications in to 
Windows will ultimately hurt many businesses which make fine 
software that complements Windows. And when business loses, the 
economy and the consumer lose too.
    I am not asking that Microsoft be destroyed, just that they 
operate on a level playing field.
    Erik Anderson



MTC-00019955

From: Solid Force
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00019956

From: Charles Colombo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft must NOT be let off easy. While I don't see any reason 
to break up the company, I do think what the nine dissenting states 
are trying to do will at least compel Microsoft to work out more 
meaningful measures to insure fairness. There must be constant 
pressure on Microsoft in order to impress upon the company that they 
will not be able to engage in anti-competitive practices with 
impunity. But
    THESE larger issues with companies like Microsoft must be 
addressed as well:
    1) End User License Agreements must come into line with the 21st 
Century-make that the 20th Century. The prospect that private 
individuals do not own the software they pay for is outrageous. The 
telephone companies were reigned in long ago over the issue of 
private individuals installing their own multiple phone extensions 
in their own homes. It should be the same for software: The license 
should go to the user, not the machine. Likewise, businesses should 
purchase the a number of licenses equal to the number of people who 
use the software.
    2) ANY software company that sells to the public should be 
required by law to a) sell a product that WORKS the way it is 
intended and continue to support it until it can be said to be 
``complete'', and b) continue to make the product 
available for as long as anyone wants to use it OR sell the code to 
another party who will continue to make it available OR release the 
code to the public. Software is a set of instructions geared to a 
paticular generation of machines and should therefore be at least as 
maintainable as the machines themselves.
    The nature of technological change in the present day is beyond 
the ability of a governing body to keep up with, UNLESS we can draw 
decisive parallels with other, past arrangements.



MTC-00019957

From: Mark D. Leighty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Without delving into any discussion of numerous technical 
points, I would like to voice my opinion on the proposed agreement 
with Microsoft. I fail to see exactly how the proposed final 
judgment is a punishment or how it will keep the company from acting 
as it has in the past. I truly believe that Microsoft will walk away 
with not even a slap on the wrist. I continue to cheer for the 
states that have rejected the proposed settlement and are pursuing 
further legal action against this company that has repeatedly broken 
the law.
    Sincerely,
    Mark D. Leighty



MTC-00019958

From: Frederick Heald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As part of the public comment period on the Microsoft 
settlement, may I add my thoughts:
    -I use both Macintosh and Windows software. I love using 
the Macintosh, I loathe using Windows. Windows has succeeded with 
poor or downright awful products, due to its anticompetitive 
practices. The situation with Explorer and Netscape is the tip of 
the iceberg.
    -The proposed settlement is entirely inappropriate; as in 
attempting to punish Microsoft's monopoly power it promotes more 
monopoly power in one area in which Microsoft currently lags, 
education.
    -Microsoft should be forced to pay a settlement in cash. 
This could be used any way the justice dept or administrating agency 
sees fit EXCEPT TO PURCHASE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS!!!
    -I believe Microsoft should be split up, at the very least 
to an operating systems division and an applications division; and 
that any communications between the two divisions should be open to 
public scrutiny. Finally,
    -Microsoft deserves to be punished for stealing the 
Macintosh operating system look and feel, nearly outright, from 
Apple. This may never happen but it's a glaring example of the 
massive product theft and anticompetitive practices of Microsoft.
    Thanks for your efforts to remedy this situation.



MTC-00019959

From: Alistair Helfer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would just like to put in my 2 cents to this settlement idea. 
I am deeply opposed to this as this settlement seems to be a 
compromise of justice. Microsoft's business practices have already 
proven to be damaging to AT LEAST one business, ie., Netscape, but 
also threaten to reduce a fledgling industry to nothing.
    By bundling applications into their operating system and not 
releasing documentation for their API's to the software development 
community, they make it impossible for application software 
companies to develop products for their platform. The result of this 
is that Microsoft can be the sole provider and charge whatever they 
wish for their services, most of which they appropriated from other 
software vendors as well as the open source community (Their TCP/IP 
stack was taken from the FreeBSD operating system). This not only 
stifles competition in the applications market, but innovation as 
well.
    Best regards,
    Alistair Helfer



MTC-00019960

From: Nuitari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I really disagree with the term of the proposed Settlement in 
the Doj vs Microsoft case as they mostly will help Microsoft boost 
and maintain it's current predatory tactics by locking everyone out 
of their API pretending security or DRM issues. Microsoft should be 
forced to publish all of their APIs interface to even out the 
application market.
    Don't forget that by repeatedly buying out competitors and 
stealing other's technology, Microsoft did not innovate anything 
that occured in the computer world. It even delibirately sunk many 
innovatives attemps made by other companies. Just an example their 
buyout of UltraCorps. The game was immediately made Internet 
Explorer only (though it worked very well with Netscape) and soon 
after they just close it down.
    You can find many other exemples by consulting this website: 
http://www.vcnet.com/bms I would greatly appreciate it if the 
settlement is refused and thougher sanctions and penalties are 
administered to Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Stephane Bakhos



MTC-00019961

From: Sidney Hatchl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This unjustified attack on Microsoft was the catalyst that 
brought on the collapse of the dot come. It is indeed ironic that 
the stock of many of the enemies of Microsoft was hurt worse than 
that of Microsoft.
    There is much to hate about Windows, but its function as a de-
facto standard has made possible the remarkable growth in both 
hardware and software. Netscape and Sun 


[[Page 26809]]


were the people who tried to win by giving stuff away. They complain 
that Microsoft overcharges the customer, but that the prices are so 
low that they unfairly hurt the competition.
    How can the expect to have it both ways.
    Sidney Hatchl
    2340 North Fairmont Avenue
    Santa Ana, CA 92706
    [email protected]
    714 836 6830



MTC-00019962

From: Luke Norris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is doing nothing short of shaping the new generation 
to here plan.
    Please STOP THIS>>. . . .



MTC-00019965

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to send a short note on my disappointment in the 
settlement with microsoft. I don't use their products any more and 
could care less what happens to them as a company. But I still have 
customers who do still use their operating systems and other 
products. What I see with every next generation of the operating 
system is less control by the user.
    One of the problems is you no longer can choose which programs 
you want to run on your computer. They all run by default and there 
is no way to turn them off without intimate knowledge of the 
operating system. mainly I'm talking about internet explorer and 
outlook express. You can install your own browser and email program 
but internet explorer and outlook are linked to all of the operating 
system help files and file browser and such so you are forced to use 
it. It will reset itself as the default browser as well.
    Another problem is the ``standards'' microsoft sets 
for file types. This includes documents, music and video files, and 
other types of files. Microsoft proposes these as the standard yet 
they don't release key information on their format so others and 
read them easily. I have been using linux with various word 
processors for 5 years and everytime someone reverse engineers the 
format of the .doc file, microsoft changes it in the next version of 
word. With the install base of word at offices, users are forced to 
also use the latest version of word at home if they take work home 
with them. They can't use another word processor or even an older 
version of word.
    Finally, I am worried microsoft is trying to take over the 
internet. I realize it would be hard for them to own it. But they 
have taken steps to use they power and influence to set standards 
for the Internet. Standards that would favor their products and 
exclude others. They took Java and transformed it into J++ which 
became windows specific. Then invented active-x which is not only 
windows specific but internet explorer specific. Their web page 
creation software, front page, produces code which is specific to IE 
and windows. And lately they have tried to block all browsers except 
IE from their microsoft.net and msn.net domains. That kept me from 
downloading security updates to IE for my customers who are on slow 
connections. I use opera which is a standards compliant browser and 
I also tried mozilla and netscape which are also standards 
compliant. IE is the least compliant out of the 4 yet their 
explanation for doing that was that the other browsers weren't up to 
standards. The Proposed Final Judgment settlement does nothing to 
stop Microsoft in their subtle and not so subtle attempts to force 
everyone to use their products and theirs alone. As written, the PFJ 
allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices to 
continue. It would hinder competing products from reaching and 
surviving in the market place. It would give Microsoft an advantage 
in the one market where they still do have competition, in the 
schools. I'm still in favor of splitting them up, anything short of 
that does nothing to stop them. One more note. I still have hundreds 
of unused copies of windows 95 because at one time you could not buy 
a computer without microsoft windows. Those days will return with 
this settlement.
    Thank you for your time.
    Greg Koch



MTC-00019966

From: Louis Zirkel III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I oppose the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust 
trial. I am of the opinion that the current proposed settlement does 
not do justice those actions which were committed by Microsoft. It 
also does not justly block their ability to commit similar actions 
from now on.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Louis D. Zirkel III
    Layton, UT 84041
    Louis Zirkel III ([email protected])
    Century Development Solutions



MTC-00019967

From: Brian Souder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:03am
Subject: Settlement Thoughts
    The proposed settlement does not go far enough. I was relieved 
to hear that the school equipment portion of the settlement was 
rejected. It was a mockery of the judicial system. In fact, 
Microsoft is a monopoly, so therefore their products should be 
EXCLUDED from the equipment purchase list. The money from Microsoft 
should go into a fund that can be drawn on against a list of 
specific vendors. IE: Linux, Macintosh, etc. Non-Microsoft related. 
PC Vendors like Dell, Gateway, HP, and Compaq could have their 
products purchased with a Linux operating system (ONLY) installed. 
No Microsoft products may be present at the point of sale. Schools 
that purchase the equipment must keep the systems as is or upgrade 
to new versions of Linux. they must also institute Linux training 
programs for students and teachers. In addition, they need to teach 
students how to program in the environment to help it expand 
further. Some of the fund should also be used for the encouragement 
of Open Source projects in the form of grants and research projects. 
If they have caused damages, why would you ever reward them with 
additional sales? That would be like stealing a bunch of 
cars-I get caught- proven guilty-but you reward me 
with a car instead of sending me to jail. Any settlement which is 
passed now is a complete joke. Microsoft knows this applies to 
Windows 98 only. They are already taking advantage of consumers and 
vendors with Windows xp. The settlement should be included to have 
Windows XP, and an other operating system needs to be installed as 
well. (Red Hat Linux or a derivative) The company really should have 
been broken into 3 parts. Internet which includes their net 
products, Internet Explorer, and all online services (Hotmail, and 
MSN), Applications (like Office, and other programming languages), 
and finally the core OS which would exclude Internet Explorer as 
being part of the OS. It could be included on the drive, but not 
integrated with the operating system. Microsoft is already getting 
additional funding based on their new pricing strategy for Windows 
XP. Any monetary loss is going to be passed on to the general 
public. They should have set pricing for 10 years for all vendors at 
about $60 per licence, and $99 for the full version for consumers. 
The upgrade would be $75. FIXED! Why should the consumer-whom 
Microsoft hurt in the first place-have to pay for their legal 
problems? Microsoft has been given entirely too much latitude in 
this case. They are pushing the DOJ and the legal system around. 
They are using money and political contributions to change the 
outcome of this settlement. It is obvious to the american public, 
and all other nations of the world. You are sending the message that 
it is ok to rip consumers off if you have enough money.
    In addition, the settlement should include the open release of 
all rights to OpenGL which they bought from SGI. Here is another 
example of Microsoft trying to kill off open source projects. They 
are trying to force everyone to use direct 3D and the MS platform 
since it is not available on other platforms.
    All Microsoft transactions must be a matter of open discussion 
from now on. There must be full disclosure of all purchases of 
assets, investments, and intellectual agreements to the general 
public for the next 10 years. All transactions must pass the 
scrutiny of the general public as well as a judge and the SEC.
    Microsoft needs to be forced to compete at the OS level again. 
They need to be forced 


[[Page 26810]]


to make their product better-not just purchase another company. 
There need to be strict guideline put in place for the acquisition 
of other companies.
    The entire API must be published, and changes to the API need to 
be documented for 10 years. Any changes made without prior notice to 
third party vendors is a violation of the settlement agreement. This 
would prevent Microsoft from randomly changing the API and not 
telling anyone but their close vendors about the changes. It would 
prevent Microsoft from ``Breaking'' other companies 
products strictly because they did not want to compete or were ahead 
in technology.
    Microsoft must be forced to port office to the Macintosh and 
Linux platforms for the next 10 years. They must remain parallel 
with the PC version with release dates within 30 days of the PC 
version. If the Macintosh and Linux version are not updated, 
Microsoft must remove all of their Office products from the shelves 
within 3 days or be fined $500,000 a day until compliance is met. 
Microsoft uses their office products as a tool to manipulate other 
companies and platforms. All investments in other companies and/or 
platforms must be sold off with the proceeds from the sale of stock 
or ownership shares being contributed to the educational fund 
outlined in the current settlement. This money would be in addition 
to the current settlement amount that excludes Microsoft property 
from being sold.



MTC-00019968

From: Joseph Lubin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If feel that the proposed settlement is an embarassment to the 
DOJ, the government, and the American people. Microsoft is notorious 
for poor business practices that have harmed many people and 
companies in the computer industry as well as the American consumer. 
It will be a travesty if Microsoft manages to buy themselves out of 
the stern consequences that should obviously follow from the 
judgement.
    Joseph Lubin
    advanced solutions group
    emagine solutions
    55 Broad Street, 21st Floor
    New York NY 10004
    w 212.709.5910
    m 917.887.8303
    h 212.255.3066



MTC-00019969

From: David C Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm writing this to express my disapproval of the proposed 
settlement in the federal antitrust suit against Microsoft. First, 
the settlement will allow Microsoft to ``donate'' their 
products to poorer school districts under licensing terms that will 
force the districts to pay millions of dollars in fees if they wish 
to continue using the software after 5 years-in effect, 
allowing Microsoft to make a profit from this settlement. Second, 
and more importantly, this settlement will not make any material 
difference in Microsoft's blatant abuse of its operating system 
monopoly. It will completely nullify years of work on the part of 
the Department of Justice's dedicated attourneys, and it will allow 
one of the greatest threats to our nation's economy to exist 
unchecked. No government that truly serves the interests of its 
people could allow such a travesty of justice to occur.
    Sincerely,
    David Carle Young
    3465 Sansom St.
    Box 27
    Philadelphia, PA 19104



MTC-00019970

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@ 
inetgw,Drmckinppp@a . . .
Date: 1/24/02 12:02am
Subject: usdoj vs Mocrosoft settlement comments
From: Donovan R. McKinney
Donovan McKinney Photography
5531 Wolf Run Drive
Columbus, OH 43230
614-475-8661
[email protected]
to: [email protected]
    Please find below my personal opinion regarding the proposed 
settlement of the USDOJ vs. Microsoft.
    1-23-2002
    The proposed settlement to allow as punishment the distribution 
of Microsoft software is not punishment in any measure. It does not 
deter Microsoft, but is a reward to Microsoft by increasing its 
market share. The actual cost to Microsoft is not real money 
damages. The settlement would damage competitors as it does not 
remove Microsoft's competitive advantage. A settlement would absolve 
Microsoft of the responsibility and damage found in a determination 
by the court. The settlement does nothing to remove the complete and 
monopolistic control Microsoft has over a resource on which our 
businesses and government are dependent. The settlement would result 
in continued and further damage to consumers, small and large 
businesses and governmental agencies.
    As the proposed settlement stands now, only consumers and 
Microsoft's competitors are damaged. The proposal rewards Microsoft 
by letting them buy their way out of being a responsible competitor. 
As with previous cases brought against Microsoft, the outcome is not 
admissible to future cases because most or all have been settled out 
of court and out of the public eye. If this happens with this case, 
the appearance, or view of the courts is that Microsoft has done 
nothing wrong. While in reality, Microsoft's consistent approach is 
to take advantage of any and all competitors untill they are 
absorbed, defeated, or driven out of the market.
    For Microsoft, the ``settlement amount'' is only an 
appearance of cost; the actual cost would be but a fraction of the 
``settlement amount''. As with any donation, a business 
can only deduct the costs of the materials required to produce a 
product and not the retail price of this product. If Microsoft 
provides their ``available'' products at ``retail 
prices'', Microsoft's actual cost would be minimal and loss of 
actual sales would also be low. If Microsoft provided products at an 
actual cost basis equal to the proposed settlement, the market would 
truly be overwhelmed with Microsoft's products further diminishing 
any competitors chances of earning market share. The proposal 
increases Microsoft's market share by dumping ``free'' 
software into the market without the market choosing the best or 
preferred product. This directly displaces any competitors product 
since any competitive manufacture could only compete by giving away 
free it's software. The proposal does not address the funding of 
competitive and alternative software directly opposed to Microsoft's 
own interest.
    The consumer is the most damaged party in this settlement. There 
is no monitory relief to the consumer. There would be no growth of a 
competitive market that would bring lower prices and innovative 
products to the consumer. The scope of innovation continues to move 
away from a collective process as was the case with UNIX Operating 
System of 30 years ago and moves closer toward control by one 
company-(Microsoft). Microsoft has no regulatory oversight 
body, yet its operating system is virtually mandatory for more than 
90% of consumers, business or government agencies to participate and 
communicate through our computerized world. By the nature of the 
license agreement to use Microsoft products, the computerized world 
is at risk to Microsoft's decisions and whims. What would happen if 
Microsoft chose to remove itself from the market? While unlikely, it 
is important to ask the question to realize the scope and impact the 
Microsoft monopoly has upon our lives.
    The proposed settlement is just that, a settlement without any 
resolution, a settlement with no direction to create competition and 
innovation, a settlement that begs the question, ``What good is 
a settlement if it provides no resolution''?
    In my opinion, what needs to happen is:
    1. For Microsoft to open its architecture to public control.
    2. That architecture should be moved in a direction that allows 
new and existing operating systems to share and compete in the OS 
market.
    3. That Microsoft funds the research in this direction, funding 
for new and existing competitive operating systems.
    4. That all proprietary advantage Microsoft has between its OS 
and other Microsoft software products be removed or opened to allow 
competitors equal programming advantage.
    5. That Microsoft shall be overseen in its contracting and 
licensing so as to provide no strong arm tactics in its negotiations 
and sales of its products.
    6. That the license of all previously sold Microsoft operating 
systems be rewritten to give ownership of the usage to the consumer 
while allowing copyright to be maintained by Microsoft unless it can 
be shown that copyright previously belonged to a competitor.
    7. That Microsoft should make available for sale, but without 
support, all previous Microsoft operating systems at a fair market


[[Page 26811]]


price so that upgrades are not mandatory to expand your system of 
computers. Microsoft has far too much influence on our lives and our 
businesses and our world's security. The proposed settlement is of 
no benefit and should not be considered.
    Sincerely,
    Donovan R. McKinney



MTC-00019971

From: Thomas Chiarodit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ``Don't go too soft on Microsoft'' is my sentiment. As 
a Macintosh user since 1989, I have paid far higher prices for 
software and hardware than I otherwise would have due to the unfair 
and predatory dominance of the PC market by Microsoft. A normal 
distribution of market share, with everyone playing by the rules, 
did not occur, and as a consumer I have paid a high price for it 
because of my preference for a different operating system.
    [email protected]



MTC-00019972

From: Curt or Jennie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Isn't it time to really make Microsoft pay for their anti-
competitive actions? Something that will have real meaning to them. 
From what I've read, and going by Microsofts past behaviors in 
various actions, the proposed settlement is completely inadequate. 
One might even call it a reward. I especially liked the class action 
suit where they were proposing giving software and machines to the 
schools. Oh my, what a terrible punishment, to be legally forced to 
break into the schools venue and start to displace Macs. Again and 
again, they have circumvented court orders and continued to 
proliferate by using illegal anti-competitive action. Please do 
something to stop them, not reward them. I personally believe that 
the only way is to split them. If it was good enough for old Ma 
Bell, it should be good enough for Microsoft. Look at all the 
competition/business opportunities that created. All the new 
businesses and opportunities created. The same could hold true here. 
Isn't it time to help boost the economy?
    Curt Jacobson
    520 6th Ave. E.
    Kalispell, MT 59901



MTC-00019973

From: jelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. The settlement as proposed does not prohibit 
Microsoft from extending and licensing extensions to common open 
protocols. As a result, Microsoft is able to prevent or prohibit 
non-Microsoft products from running with with Microsoft operating 
systems and browsers.
    My company has an online internet application that was developed 
using common open protocols and non-Microsoft software. Microsoft 
could extend the open protocols, license the extensions, and 
prohibit our application from running with Microsoft operating 
systems and browser. The Microsoft solution would be for our company 
to jettison our significant investment in the existing system and 
reinvest in a Microsoft homogeneous server. Microsoft has a history 
of embracing and extending incompatible open protocols. A current 
example is Microsoft's incompatible version of MIT's kerberos 
security system that prevented non-Microsoft kerberos servers from 
participating even though the kerberos architecture and protocols 
were openly defined and created by MIT and successfully deployed for 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft systems. After an uproar from MIT and 
the kerberos community. Microsoft relented and removed the 
artificial technical barriers to heterogenous kerberos servers. I'm 
afraid that our company may not be able to generate such a loud 
uproar to right the obvious wrongs.
    Sincerely yours,
    Jelle Jorritsma
    Software Developer
    Arcata, California



MTC-00019974

From: Ian Cameron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Morning,
    I am writing, as a personal computer user, to complain about the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. I think that it is all about letting 
Microsoft off the hook, as has been done in the past, and has 
nothing to do with providing consumers, both commercial and home, 
with competition in the internet browser and operating system 
markets.
    If you intend to punish Microsoft, you must punish them. Not 
just take cash out of them which they will recoup quickly from their 
established monopoly. You must break their monopoly. Consumers must 
be given a choice. For example you could legislate that all 
computers must be purchasable without a Microsoft product installed.
    This is just a thought.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my ideas.
    Regards,
    Ian Cameron



MTC-00019975

From: Carlos Leal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Please count me as an end-user who finds the proposed settlement 
both a waste of tax dollars spent getting to this point and an 
unconscionable vote for continued computing mediocrity.
    Sincerely,
    Carlos D. Leal
Carlos D. Leal
9120 Dove Ct.
817-249-4434
Fort Worth, TX 76126



MTC-00019976

From: Bomily
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consumer, an end user of personal computers and I have 
been harmed by Microsoft's unethical business practices. For 
example, because I use Netscape for my browser, I have been blocked 
for a time from some sites at Microsoft's domain. Even now, when I 
visit certain pages at Microsoft domains, the pages are not rendered 
properly and/or functionality is lost. There is nothing wrong with 
my browser, it works fine on other websites. What is happening at 
Microsoft domains is a browser version of what has already occurred 
with regard to competition in the Operating System market and 
certain software applications. Key Application User Interfaces were 
withheld from companies that were in competition with Microsoft so 
that their software would not run right on Windows (think 
WordPerfect). And way back when DR DOS still had a chance at market 
share, MS put in code to scare developers with false error messages. 
They're using similar tactics now. They are trying to make rival 
applications lose functionality on platforms they control. They 
completely control the operating system and now they're trying to 
control the web and how it is accessed. Hence, they've made rival 
web browsers lose functionality on their web domains. If their .Net 
strategy succeeds, believe me, they will exercise control to the 
fullest extent possible until domination results.
    For those few of us who have refused to use Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer that comes bundled with our PCs (consumers have no choice 
about that-they've forced IE upon us), MS is now trying to force us 
to use their bundled browser by making Microsoft download sites 
(these sites are necessary to install patches, etc.) cumbersome and 
difficult if accessed with a non-MS browser. They seek total control 
of the web just as they now dominate the operating system market for 
personal computers and I find that prospect very scary. I think you 
should too. The current remedies sought by the Justice Department 
are impotent at best and innocuous at worst. They do not go far 
enough; Microsoft has already demonstrated to the world, to those 
with an honest and fair mind, that they are corrupt, unethicaX-
Mozilla-Status: 0009hing to achieve their goals. Please be fair and 
think of the little people and the little companies that don't have 
voices as loud as Microsoft's with their $35 billion of monopoly 
derived revenue. Our future is in your hands. Please keep real 
choice alive.
    Sincerely,
    Marina Krefft



MTC-00019977

From: Mandie (b)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    IT is wrong to what your doing.



MTC-00019978

From: Jon Bernard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09am


[[Page 26812]]


Subject: Microsoft Settlement-against
    I am a computer systems administrator for Microsoft Windows NT 
and Sun Solaris machines. I have several years of experience in IT, 
including a summer at the Microsoft campus in Redmond, Washington. I 
am strongly against the proposed settlement. The only real solution 
to MS monopoly is, I think, to split the company in two, with the 
operating system and languages forming one company, and the 
applications another.
    Sincerely,
    Jon Bernard
    155 Broad St #5
    Hamilton NY 13346



MTC-00019979

From: Stephen McManus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever this concerns,
    I understand that I have the ability to comment on the proposed 
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft. In that 
case, I would like to register my objection to the proposed 
settlement in the United States vs. Microsoft case.
    The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, 
but curiously allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas.
    This settlement is essentially a slap on the wrist for 
Microsoft, and further restrictions need to be enforced to end its 
anti-competitive practices.



MTC-00019980

From: Jim Bouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft just does what every company in America 
wants to do, Sell more products than anyone else. Shame on the 
govenment for getting in the way.
    Jim Bouse



MTC-00019981

From: Don Berberich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I wish to add my comments on the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
remedy, within the auspices of the Tunney Act. I am a citizen of the 
United States and a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio. The current 
proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust trial is an 
insufficient remedy. I work in the information technology field and 
have direct exposure to the negative impact of the Microsoft 
monopoly on a daily basis. Microsoft has created a cycle:
    1) The dominance of Microsoft operating systems and unfair 
practices have created a dependency on Microsoft applications, 
specifically Microsoft Office.
    2) The predominance of Microsoft applications, which are 
insufficiently available for non-Microsoft operating systems, 
compels the purchase of additional Microsoft operating systems. In 
fact, companies which provide applications with similar 
functionality to Microsoft products are purchased or unfairly driven 
out of business. This was seen in the trial, in the form of the 
attacks on Java and the Netscape browser.
    Currently, economic attacks against companies such as Corel have 
forced the cessation of development of a competitive operating 
system and restricted the availability of a competitive office 
suite.
    Any remedy must approach the need for competitive applications 
for Microsoft operating systems, as well as the need for Microsoft 
applications to support non-Microsoft operating systems. Here are 
additional ideas for preventing Microsoft from exercising monopoly 
power in the Intel-compatible PC arena:
    1) Microsoft is currently holding its monopoly through unfair 
OEM licensing practices and limiting most Microsoft applications to 
its own operating systems. A solution to the operating system issue: 
Each Microsoft application must be developed for at least two non-
Microsoft operating systems, at Microsoft's expense. The non-
Microsoft operating systems should hold at least 2% of the Intel-PC 
desktop operating system market share or a similar requirement to 
increase the acceptance of non-Microsoft operating system which have 
already carved an initial foothold. If an operating system 
developer/provider wishes, at the developer's expense, to modify and 
enhance Microsoft applications so that they will run on the 
provider's operating system, complete source code will be provided 
to the operating system developer to create. Microsoft may collect 
royalties no greater than the sum charged to OEMs for the Microsoft 
developed version of the application.
    2) Investigate and restrict the subscription based licensing, 
which Microsoft currently proposes. In this model, customers are 
economically compelled to keep the costly subscriptions, possibly 
owning no product at the end of the subscription.
    I also agree with these suggestions at http://www.gnu.org/
philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html: ``1. Require Microsoft to 
publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software 
components, all communications protocols, and all file formats. This 
would block one of Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and 
incompatible interfaces.
    To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be 
allowed to use a nondisclosure agreement with some other 
organization to excuse implementing a secret interface. The rule 
must be: if they cannot publish the interface, they cannot release 
an implementation of it. It would, however, be acceptable to permit 
Microsoft to begin implementation of an interface before the 
publication of the interface specifications, provided that they 
release the specifications simultaneously with the implementation.
    Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other 
software developers complain that the published documentation fails 
to describe some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain 
job, the court would direct Microsoft to answer questions about it. 
Any questions about interfaces (as distinguished from implementation 
techniques) would have to be answered.
    Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the 
European Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute. See 
http://www.cptech.org/at/ibm/ibm1984ec.html.
    2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the 
field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to 
other fields, those other fields could be included in this 
requirement, or they could be exempt.) This would block the other 
tactic Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents 
to block development of free software.
    We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense 
or mutual defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all 
patents at no charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual defense 
means licensing all patents to a pool which anyone can 
join-even people who have no patents of their own. The pool 
would license all members'' patents to all members.
    It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does 
no good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed 
to work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it 
gives access to), such that the rest of us are not allowed to 
implement it.
    3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with 
Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications 
have been published, so that any programmer can implement software 
to support the same hardware.
    Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's 
doing, but they are a significant obstacle for the development of 
the free operating systems that can provide competition for Windows. 
To remove this obstacle would be a great help. If a settlement is 
negotiated with Microsoft, including this sort of provision in it is 
not impossible-it would be a matter of negotiation.''
In addition, please review the following web sites:



[[Page 26813]]


http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/4020/1/
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    Regards,
    Don Berberich
    Cincinnati, OH



MTC-00019982

From: Gary Keramidas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    let it stand the way it is
    Gary



MTC-00019983

From: Tom Condon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been a independent software engineering consultant for 
the last 12 years. Having seen the effect of Microsoft1s criminal 
anticompetitive actions firsthand, I am saddened that the Department 
of Justice will allow Microsoft to escape any meaningful penalty.
    Please consider the harm to the technological leadership of 
America that a criminally dominant Microsoft does. By illegally 
destroying competition, the impetus for technological advancement 
has been harmed in the American marketplace. Free markets make 
America strong. Microsoft has destroyed the free market forces in 
the desktop computing marketplace. Economic diversity in the 
technology marketplace is vital to the security of our country.
    Thank you for your time.
    Thomas P. Condon
    Condon Consulting Services, Inc.
    2032 Columbine Ave.
    Boulder, CO 80302
    (Phone) 303-442-1571



MTC-00019984

From: Laszlo Toth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am greatly dismayed with the light ``remedies'' 
suggested for the Microsoft case. I'm afraid they do not prevent the 
disgusting behavior of these sociopaths suffered by the American 
people and the world. I am also afraid it does not reflect well on 
this government. The whole deal stinks of money and influence 
peddling on behalf of this current administration.
    Thank you for your time.
    L. Ewing



MTC-00019985

From: Bob Doran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The predatory practices of Microsoft have effectively eliminated 
a number of choices I would otherwise have in personal computer 
operating system software, and caused the limited choices that 
remain to cost much more then they otherwise would, had Microsoft 
not constrained and eliminated competition and operated to establish 
a monopoly of the desktop software industry.
    This isn't about competition, or the best product winning. 
Microsoft has destroyed hundreds if not thousands of better products 
and ideas simply to perpetuate a stranglehold on consumer choices, 
and to be able to charge more for Microsoft products.
    I and millions of consumers like me too have been damaged by the 
practices of Microsoft. I ask you to institute permanent changes to 
the behavior of Microsoft in such a manner that I and all consumers 
are protected from future anti-competitive Microsoft practices. 
Further, I ask that the settlement of the Antitrust litigation 
between the United States and Microsoft contain provisions for the 
repair of damages I and other Microsoft product purchasers have 
suffered.
    Regards,
    Robert K. Doran
    28775 Hedgerow
    Mission Viejo, CA 92692



MTC-00019986

From: Howard Swerdfeger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to mention state before the public deadline on 
comments expires, that I am against the settlement with proposed 
with Microsoft corperation.
    I believe it doesn't do enough to A: punish microsoft for its 
illigal actions B: Prevent further abuse of its opperating monopoly 
C: Allow competitors to opperate on a fair, equitable and level 
playing field
    sincerly
    Howard Swerdfeger
    Canadian Citizen



MTC-00019987

From: Donna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to make myself heard in regards to this issue. As a 
present user of Microsoft products, I am heartily disgusted with the 
underhanded, snake like ways of this company. I am appalled at the 
lack of integrity, the ongoing lack of concern for their customers, 
and overtly greedy, power-hungry behaviours.
    It is my belief that unless a very heavy penalty is handed down 
and ENFORCED, this company will blithely go about business as usual 
in it's effort to own the web. Right now, as their day of judgment 
nears, they still have not ceased with the behaviours and tactics 
that got them in this position to begin with.
    Please, do not allow this monoply to continue unhindered. The 
computing world will rue the day.
    Thank you,
    Donna E. Deslippe



MTC-00019988

From: Ben Stragnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional, it's my opinion that Microsoft has 
set the computing industry back many years by using their dominant 
position to stifle independent innovation.
    The proposed settlement contains so many loopholes as to render 
it entirely worthless. Accepting it will permit Microsoft to 
continue to retard the development of the US industry. The USPTO 
already has a great deal to answer for in granting ridiculous 
patents to coporate behemoths. Please do not allow the DoJ to become 
equally reviled within the technology industry.
    Yours,
    Ben Stragnell



MTC-00019989

From: M. M.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This whole operation stinks. I'd rather the president have a cum 
slut of his own, ala Monica Lewinsky, than be the cum slut of Bill 
Gates, ala George DUHbya Bush.
    A frustrated letter writer.



MTC-00019990

From: Jason Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a US citizen and software developer of many years, I wish to 
express my disappointment with the proposed final judgement in 
``United States vs. Microsoft''.
    I have been hindered on many occasions by Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices, and the proposed settlement does little 
to curb further abuse nor make reparation to their damage to the 
computer industry. For example, their tight integration of the 
Internet Explorer (IE) browser with the operating system has made it 
quite difficult for me to effectively create web pages without 
purchasing Windows. Their illegal actions allowed them to quickly 
dominate the market with a product widely considered (at the time) 
inferior to Netscape Navigator, it's main competition. Navigator was 
available for Linux and Irix as well as Microsoft and Apple OSes, 
allowing me to test web pages in my preferred environment. But now 
with IE's market share I have to have access to a Windows or 
Macintosh computer in order to verify that web pages will look 
acceptable to clients who also have been forced into use of the 
Windows environment. The proposed settlement leaves me in this 
predicament, forced to contribute unwillingly to Microsoft's market 
share.
    Secondly, although the settlement (dubiously) requires Microsoft 
to publish its APIs, it still leaves me in many cases unable to 
write competing software. I choose to release all software I write 
using the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL), 
which allows anyone to freely examine, modify and redistribute my 
code. But the settlement allows Microsoft to charge royalties for 
use of methods protected by its software patents- impossible 
for me to pay if I release under the GPL, since I don't know how 
many copies of my code are distributed.
    Others have commented on the many specifics of the proposed 
final judgement 


[[Page 26814]]


which are weak and incomplete; my statement only 
highlights a few ways in which the settlement fails for me 
specifically. The settlement is wholly unacceptable and insufficient 
for the needs of myself and many others, and I urge the court to 
provide real relief.
    -Jason Holt



MTC-00019991

From: Chad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As an American citizen, I believe that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is a horrible idea. What is being proposed is one of the 
easiest ways for Microsoft to get out of trouble for a very cheap 
price. Please do not let a company convicted of being a monopolist 
get off so easy.
    Chad Vogelsong



MTC-00019992

From: Daniel S. Wilkerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft fails to do anything 
useful and allows Microsoft to simply continue their illegal 
practices. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruling states on p.99 
as follows.
    ``The Supreme Court has explained that a remedies decree in 
an anti-trust case must seek to ``unfetter a market from 
anticompetitive conduct'' to ``terminate the illegal 
monopoly, deny the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation 
and ensure that there remain no practices likely to result in 
monopolization in the future.''
    As far as I understand the decree, it does not do anything 
resembling this. Allowing the same company, Microsoft, to continue 
to provide such interlocking services such as 1-Operating 
Systems, 2-Applications, and 3-Internet services which 
could and often are provided by different companies in the rest of 
the industry, is just asking for the monopoly to not only continue, 
but to be extended from one field (operating systems) into others 
through leveraging of the already existing monopoly Microsoft has on 
the desktop. It is absolutely clear that this kind of illegal tying 
between the operating system and the browser is going on now. Should 
Microsoft also gain control of the server, and thus be able to 
control the protocols for the web and email, Microsoft would quite 
literally own the Internet. Imagine one company controlling the 
postal system or television completely. With the Internet replacing 
all other modes of communication, it is not an overstatement to 
suggest this could be the end of free speech. There is historical 
precedent for monopolies with enough power attempting control as 
unimaginable as this: The United States owes its first settlers to 
the attempt by the then Catholic English monarchy to prevent people 
from reading the Bible by burning to death anyone found with an 
English copy of it.
    What eventually broke the monarchy's grip was that printing 
technology was simple enough that people could and did simply 
duplicate it in their own homes: eventually there were just too many 
English bibles. The major problem here is that the Internet 
situation is really *not* like these previous historical situations 
with other media that seem similar, and yet people are content to 
think of it as if it is. It is a problem with computers, but not 
with television or telephones or newspapers, or any other mass 
communication medium, because software is fundamentally different 
than these other technologies: it is maximally complicated. The 
communications protocols in these historical examples are very 
simple. Anyone can also build a TV, not just Sony. Anyone can print 
a newspaper. Telephones are similarly simple. However, I can attest 
from first hand knowledge that the fact that software protocols can 
be arbitrarily complex and constantly changing very effectively 
locks others out of competing with Microsoft. I can't write a 
competitor to Microsoft Office because the file formats for the 
documents are too nasty and change too often. At my last job we have 
tried deciphering them. This is not idle speculation. You may laugh, 
but think of it this way: The signal of a TV means an image and the 
encoding for it does not change very often (every few decades, and 
only with huge resistance. We still don't have HDTV.) The words you 
write in a newspaper may change, but the language they are written 
in does not: We can still read what was written 500 years ago. 
However, computers are *universal* machines that can be have 
*arbitrarily* complexly. The signal that comes over the Internet can 
be interpreted as data, say text or image, or as a new program, 
changing the very *language* of the (subsequent) signal itself. 
Imagine that after reading one newspaper article, you knew a new 
language and the publisher then published all subsequent articles in 
this new language. If they prevent you from reading that first 
article, you can no longer read *any* more! This is how computers 
work. This is the danger of Microsoft's control over so many aspects 
of computing.
    I support breaking the company into three parts providing the 
three services offered above: operating system, applications, and 
Internet services. I also support an idea from the Free Software 
Foundation which I have quoted below .
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Wilkerson, Software Engineer
    Quoted suggestion of the Free Software Foundation: http://
www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between software components, all communications 
protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of Microsoft's 
favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces.
    To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be 
allowed to use a nondisclosure agreement with some other 
organization to excuse implementing a secret interface. The rule 
must be: if they cannot publish the interface, they cannot release 
an implementation of it.
    It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin 
implementation of an interface before the publication of the 
interface specifications, provided that they release the 
specifications simultaneously with the implementation. Enforcement 
of this requirement would not be difficult. If other software 
developers complain that the published documentation fails to 
describe some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain job, 
the court would direct Microsoft to answer questions about it. Any 
questions about interfaces (as distinguished from implementation 
techniques) would have to be answered. Similar terms were included 
in an agreement between IBM and the European Community in 1984, 
settling another antitrust dispute. See http://www.cptech.org/at/
ibm/ibm1984ec.html.



MTC-00019993

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft%20Settlement
    Dear whomever,
    The settlement would be outrageous and against good business 
practice. Please do not let thm get away with this rip-off.
    Kathleen
    Seattle USA
    http://www.icewindow.com



MTC-00019994

From: Nathan Mace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: I am opposed to the current state of 
affairs concerning the anti-trust case against Microsoft. Forcing 
them to remove their browser from the core of their operating system 
is a step in the right direction, it is not enough.
    Although some people are for making them release the source code 
for thier products, I think that this would also be the wrong 
decsion. They have invested millions, if not billions in the code 
that makes up Windows and Office. Forcing them to give it away is 
wrong and un-American. However it is a well known fact that they 
have used their domaince in the PC market to illegally force 
competiors out of the market. Look at Netscape and OS/2 for 
examples.
    Although radical as it might be, I believe that the best way to 
handle this monoply is to break it up into two seperate 
corporations. One for the OS, one for applications such as Office, 
Internet Explorer, various games, and the X-Box. That way it ensures 
that the applications cannot be integrated into the OS any more than 
a competiors might be. People say that doing so would damage our 
ecomomy. I say it would help more than hurt. With IE and Office no 
longer so tightly bound to the OS, it would get competiors a level 
playing field. With a level playing field comes a much better, 
stabler economy. Look that the economy of the United States. It is 
based on the one simple fact that everyone starts out on a level 
playing field. Without that, where would we be today?
    Look back to AT&T. Sure, when they were split up it was 
rough for a while, but look now. Look at Sprint and MCI. With true 
competation comes the ability to offer the best services to the most 
people at the best price.


[[Page 26815]]


    Everyone wins. Please, don't let Microsoft remain a monopoly.
    Nathan Mace



MTC-00019995

From: John F. Chamblee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    This letter is in support of the principles outlined in Dan 
Kegel's Open Letter to the DOJ, concerning the Microsoft Settlement. 
By way of providing a specific reason behind my support, I would 
argue that there are a number of applications in the realm of image 
processing and Geographic Information Systems that are being hurt by 
Microsoft's refusal to release its API's in a manner consistent with 
other software developers. This secrecy results in applications 
that, though powerful overall, are given to instability, resulting 
in lost time and work.
    Sincerely,
    John F. Chamblee, M.A.
    Research Associate, Center for Applied Spatial Analysis
    University of Arizona
    Tucson, AZ 85721
    John F. Chamblee
    Department of Anthropology
    University of Arizona
    Tucson, AZ 85721
    pgp key and other silliness: http://www.u.arizona.edu/
ï¿½7Echamblee
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and 
you are the easiest person to fool.
    -Richard Feynman
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00019996

From: Steve Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [I read in the San Jose Mercury that I could send public 
comments about the antitrust trial to this address.]
    There are those that believe Windows to be a wonderful product, 
and that Microsoft has not diminished competition thru their 
monopolistic actions. Those people have not seen the incredible 
advances of software products in other industries during the past 20 
years, most notably in the areas of stability and security, where 
Windows is so weak.
    In many ways Microsoft is to the software industry as the US is 
to global politics: the 800-pound gorilla with incredible resources.
    While US leadership (and our democratic process) usually 
recognizes that abusing this position has long-term negative 
repercussions with foreign states, Microsoft leadership takes full 
advantage of their position to vanquish companies with competitive 
(and sometimes superior) products.
    This must not be allowed to continue, and I believe the only way 
to prevent it is to (1) enforce a change in leadership at Microsoft, 
or (2) to split the OS division out of the rest of the company.
    -Steve Schmidt
    Los Altos, CA



MTC-00019997

From:--
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    These proposed remedies do nothing to remedy the original 
problems. Please take a more severe approach.
    Kaiser Sose



MTC-00019998

From: Richard Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement. As a minimum, Microsoft 
should be disallowed from publishing Internet Explorer and from ever 
charging customers for products they give away as an enticement 
(example: Entourage for Mac was free, now they charge 499.00 to 
purchase. There should be regulations against Microsoft's predatory 
practices of selling products and dropping support (Project for Mac) 
or charging exorbitant upgrade fees (Office X for Mac).



MTC-00019999

From: Jonathan Maddox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel that the Proposed Final Judgment is against the public 
interest. I oppose this settlement.
    Here are some of the specific areas that I am concerned with.
    The proposed final judgment doesn't take into account Windows-
compatible competing operating systems.
    The proposed final judgment contains misleading and overly 
narrow definitions and provisions The proposed final judgment fails 
to prohibit anticompetitive license terms currently used by 
Microsoft.
    The proposed final judgment fails to prohibit intentional 
incompatibilities historically used by Microsoft.
    The proposed final judgment fails to prohibit anticompetitive 
practices towards OEMs The proposed final judgment as currently 
written appears to lack an effective enforcement mechanism.
    sincerely,
    Jonathan Dale Maddox, DVM
    1159 South Clarence
    Oak Park, IL 60304



MTC-00020000

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft should be held accountable
    Dear USDOJ
    I believe it is important that Microsoft be held accountable for 
their actions.
    Yours Sincerely
    Robert P Tag
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00020001

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Re: The Microsoft settlement-I am opposed.
    I do not believe the Settlement with Microsoft goes nearly far 
enough in restricting Microsoft's monopoly power. I felt that the 
company should have been split into two parts: one for applications 
development, and one for operating systems development, with no 
possibility for private communications between the two. This way 
applications developers would not be disadvantaged when attempting 
to compete with Microsoft on application programs.
    Thank you. -
    Paul R. Woods
    [email protected]



MTC-00020002

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    The proposed Final Judgment is insufficient to prohibit future 
monopolistic practices by Microsoft for several reasons:
    It defines Windows API's too narrowly, i.e. as only API's 
between middleware and Windows. The PFJ should expand this 
definition to include all Windows API's.
    Section III A 2 does not restrain Microsoft from retaliating 
against OEM's who ship computers containing only a competing 
operating system and not Windows.
    The powers of the Technical Committee include investigation, but 
not enforcement. Enforcement of any violations uncovered by the 
Technical Committee would require lengthy and expensive legal 
action.
    No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats have been found to form part of the Applications 
Barrier to Entry.
    Thank you for your consideration to these comments.
    William A. Lynn III
    112 Combs Loop
    Yorktown, VA 23693



MTC-00020003

From: Cornelius, Shawn (NE)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am NOT in favor of the proposed Microsoft settlement. I have 
added myself as a co-signer to Dan Kegel's open letter which can be 
found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. For further 
information on what I find objectionable, please see Dan's letter.
    Thank You,
    Shawn Cornelius
    Network Engineer
    Broken Arrow, OK 74012



MTC-00020004

From: Philip Flip Kromer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is deeply flawed.
    My primary objection is that Microsoft is not required to keep 
even a pro forma separation between Operating Systems 


[[Page 26816]]


Development and Applications development. Any resonable settlement 
should include a provision enforcing a ``Chinese Wall'' between 
these divisions, so that other companies play on a level field with 
Microsoft. This will also help ensure that Microsoft does not 
leverage loopholes in the settlement (as it has so often in the 
past) to obfuscate their APIs-there own applications divisions 
will be just as encumbered.
    Thank you for your time, and I hope that a significantly 
stronger solution may be found.
    Philip Kromer



MTC-00020005

From: Alarik W. Skarstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ:
    Your institution should properly be named the Department of Law, 
not Justice. It would be naive of course to identify law with 
justice; certainly there is much law and little justice involved in 
your ``settlement'' with Microsoft.
    I am a private party, not a lawyer. I am fairly familiar with 
the technology world. Microsoft is a company whose behaviour, were 
it an individual could well have landed it in jail. That aside, your 
acceptance of the sheer immorality of MS's public and private 
actions calls into question your own ethical standards.
    You should be ashamed of yourself, individually and 
collectively.
    Regards,
    Alarik W. Skarstrom



MTC-00020006

From: James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Small companies come out with a crappy product and blame M$ 
cause they can't compete. BooHoo.
    While I think M$$ may have been wrong in some respects I think 
the law suit is way out of line. I will use nothing but M$ products 
from now on where ever possible as a protest to this attrocity(not 
that I dont now but now I will double my efforts) and netscape 
please die now and leave us alone. heres another little bit. The 
only way that aol is #1 is because they flood the public with 
its bull. I tried it and hated it.Not my fault or M$ fault if they 
bought a loser like netscrape.



MTC-00020007

From: acosand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:18am
Subject: I Oppose the Microsoft settlement
    I do not believe that the current setttlement is effective 
either in righting past wrongs of preventing future ones. I support 
harsher punitive and preventative measures.
    Thank you.
    -Andrew J Cosand - /**************** ****************** 
******************* ********************
    Andrew Cosand [email protected] (858)336-2714 http:/
/cvrr.ucsd.edu/ï¿½7Eacosand UCSD ECE Computer Vision & Robitcs 
Research MS Student, Research Assistant **************** 
****************** ******************* ********************
    Nobody ever made a difference by doing the same thing as 
everyone else. **************** ****************** 
******************* ********************



MTC-00020008

From: Steve Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:20am
Subject: AOL/Netscape at it again to drag down the industry
    AOL is at it again, trying to drag down the tech sector with 
pointless and sensationalistic litigation, continuing to falsely 
cast itself as a victim instead of accepting its true character as a 
has-been producer of inferior products. The consumer clearly had a 
choice of browsers, and chose the superior product in terms of 
performance, stability, support of open industry standards, and 
features. Suing Microsoft only confirms this point, and benefits no 
one.
    Please, the sane world begs you to snuff this latest and most 
ridculous lawsuit against Microsoft as soon as possible.
    Steven P. Burns
    software industry old-timer
    WA, USA



MTC-00020009

From: James Tanne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Attorney General, Members of the Department of 
Justice:
    I, and many 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-00020010

From: Douglas Terborg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I am writing to voice my disagreement with the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. Now that Microsoft has been declared a 
monopoly, it appears that once again, the USDOJ will be behaving in 
the same milksop manner they did when trying to take Microsoft to 
task over the MS Office product some years ago. Much money and time 
was wasted in the effort (which had many valid points) only to welsh 
on truly punishing Microsoft. I mean, if Microsoft is really a 
monopoly, and if the government has spent so much of my tax dollars, 
and of their time in proving it, shouldn't there actually be a 
punishment?
    For argument, if I have a son who can't play fair with others, 
should I just always say ``No, No, Johnny'', and 
eventually teach him that disobedience is okay because his 
punishment is nothing more than hearing someone tell him 
``No''? Perhaps I should take away Johnny's favorite toy 
for awhile, and teach him that not doing the right thing has a 
consequence he doesn't like, giving him a chance to learn. I demand, 
as someone whose tax dollars went into this process, that you handle 
this matter in a matter that actually teaches Microsoft that 
anticompetetive practices get punished. Should you fail to do so, 
you not only allow their company to behave like the allegorical 
little Johnny, but once again, the public sees you as a toothless 
tiger that has no hope of bringing down the prey it chases.
    Douglas Terborg
    Grand Rapids, Michigan



MTC-00020011

From: Karen Igla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:23am
Subject: In Support Of Resolving Microsoft Lawsuit
    I would like to join those urging a speedy settlement of the 
Microsoft lawsuit. I understand the current proposal is fair 
regarding these elements in the agreement:
    -Computer manufacturers will be able to include non-
Microsoft software in their products.
    -Microsoft will alter its products, including the new 
Windows XP, to make it easier for consumers to substitute non-
Microsoft programs in the Windows operating system.
    -Microsoft will be required to share its programming code 
with competitors so their software for video streaming, digital 
photography and other features will be compatible with Windows.
    -A three-member Technical Committee will be established to 
monitor Microsoft's behavior and enforce the settlement for the next 
five years. Should the company be found in violation of the terms of 
the settlement, it can be extended for another two years.
    Thank you for ending this costly suit.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Igla



MTC-00020012

From: matt beito
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement


[[Page 26817]]


    Hello, Sir and/or Madam.
    I have some genuine concern over the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. As is, the proposed settlement isn't going 
to remedy the problem with Microsoft's past and future actions. In 
the past they have had very anticompetitive actions against their 
competitors and even with the restrictions that would be placed upon 
microsoft by the settlement, it wouldn't stop them from behaving the 
same way.
    In your settlement you tell microsoft that they are to open up 
their API's to other companies. But you don't require them to do it 
free of charge. Microsoft could potentially open up the API's to 
anyone willing to pay a million dollars for a very restrictive 
licensed version of the documents. Microsoft should be required to 
publish _ALL_ their API's and Data Structures in a 
media format that is free of charge and free to be used in any 
manner without restriction.
    I would also make a requirement that future API's should be 
treated the same way for the next 15 years.
    Thanks,
    Matthew A. Beito
    49401 N US 41
    Hancock, MI 49930



MTC-00020013

From: Matt Atkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Synapsis: The settlement is grossly insufficient. Do something 
that will allow Free Software to at least protect itself against 
Microsoft.
    I feel that the judgement being reached in this case is not 
curative of the problems that it addresses. I feel that Microsoft 
will not be sufficiently restrained in their business practices to 
stop them from using their monopolistic desktop share to force 
others out of business.
    I feel that Microsoft has actually used this case and it's 
remedy to arm itself to use the law against it's current exsisting 
competitors. Honestly, folks-It seems like there are holes in 
this large enough to toss a truck through, and I'm not alone.
    I've gotten sick and tired of my friend bringing me computers 
with buggy, flawed Windows installs. I'm tired of trying to tell 
them that Yes, there were alternatives once, before Microsoft drove 
most of them out of business-Not by being good, or by being 
right, but by good marketing, and use of strongarm anticompetitive 
techniques that would make rail barrons blush.
    I've also gotten tired of big business buying their way out of 
trouble. They're guilty as sin, dammit, and they aught to pay.
    This is a joke. Take this sentance back and put out something 
with some teeth in it. It's a sad dammned world where people can 
steel this much money, and be this crooked, and get off this easy.



MTC-00020014

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:24am
Subject: Times Warner AOL
    I am so tired of every other day another company is out to get 
Microsoft I use AOL but am about to quit everyone should work on 
there own companies and be succesfull instead of suing I am so 
shocked that a company like Times Warner would go so low, I guess 
anything to make money instead of working for it, This country 
should be proud of Microsoft and all the good work Bill Gates does. 
Try working hard like he does and maybe you will be a success 
instead of attacking anyone who has been a success
    E Fletcher



MTC-00020015

From: David Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:24am
Subject: from a concerned citizen
    I find this lawsuit very upsetting. Time-Warner is trying to 
tell us that they are being hurt by Microsoft when they totally 
control their cable and cable modem in our area. I can't even log on 
to high speed service without going thru Time-Warner DSL to get to 
MSN.com. Microsoft has been held back so that TW could monopolize 
this market, even over some of the more expensive services. Where is 
leading us except that T/W has used my fees to support a lawsuit 
over the very service they supply!!! A Monopoly!!!
    Microsoft has enriched my personal life. Not monetarily, but 
just as a person who likes to read current events and put a more 
organized life together. I use it as a ``very dependable 
service'' to communicate with my Son in the Army serving our 
country at Ft Hood, TX.
    I've used ALL the other services including AOL and frankly I was 
tired of all the Spam advertising and Kiddy Porn that the site 
encourages.
    Now as I see this if you rule against Microsoft your Making AOL/
Time-Warner THE MONOPOLY of
1. Cable Television
2. Affordable Internet access
3. Free access News Media
4. Affordable High-Speed Internet and who knows what in the 
future!!!
    Just remember the commercial on Radio and Television: ``AOL 
no wonder it's #1 -Talk about a Monopoly!!!!!



MTC-00020016

From: Scott Wilder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:26am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think the microsoft judgement is a bad idea, as a computer 
scientist, I truly believe they are a monopoly, and hinder smaller 
companies from innovation.
    Scott Wilder



MTC-00020017

From: Anthony Hawke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You can't hide code (specifically, interfaces information and 
documentation) that would enable other's to write excellent 
applications to work alongside Windows (or whatever Microsoft 
product you want to choose), it limits competition and causes many 
users to miss out on quality software.
    Take away competition and you limit innovation.... will we live 
in a world where Microsoft dictates what is possible?
    Anthony Hawke
    IT Support Officer
    Australia



MTC-00020018

From: Timothy Shea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25am
Subject: [Fwd: [email protected]]
    Your Honor Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    As a concerned citizen, I urge you to reject the proposed final 
judgment in the Microsoft anti-trust suit. Microsoft is a 
monopolist, as every court has determined, and this settlement would 
do nothing to prevent further illegal use of their power. The loser 
here is the American consumer and the high tech industry. The 
proposed settlement also allows Microsoft to retain virtually all of 
its ill-gotten profits. Therefore, I ask that you rule against this 
pro-Microsoft final judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy P. Shea
    2959 Spring Valley Rd.
    Lancaster PA 17601
    717-898-7636



MTC-00020019

From: Matt Wahlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing this in response to an article I saw in the San 
Jose, California Mercury News which stated that public comments 
regarding the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement are still 
welcome at this email address. If this is not the case, I apologize 
in advance for any inconvenience this message may cause.
    Regarding this proposed antitrust settlement- I heartily 
disagree with the position taken by the current administration in 
pursuing this settlement. As a professional with almost 25 
years'' experience in the software field and with software 
products (and product development) in general, I feel that this 
settlement is bad for the American public and bad for the 
competitive business environment in our country (and the world).
    Over the years, I have seen Microsoft's anti-competitive 
business practices squash competition from small companies trying to 
develop new ideas and technology without the benefit of the 
resources that a monopolistic company, such as Microsoft, can bring 
to bear. In addition, I have frequently seen examples of Microsoft 
taking advantage of their Operating System monopoly for personal 
computers to crush competition by effectively locking out users from 
using other, better products with their System. Although Netscape, 
and their browser, is one of the more highly visible examples of 
Microsoft using a number of different aspects of their Operating 
System monopoly to create an unfair advantage for Microsoft's own 
product in the marketplace, this is FAR from the only example.
    I feel that the original remedy recommended by the judge in the 
first 


[[Page 26818]]


Microsoft antitrust trial was a good remedy and an appropriate 
example of the kind of actions required to curb Microsoft's 
monopolistic power in the marketplace. Creating separate businesses 
from some of Microsoft's more profitable product lines, and forcing 
them to compete fairly with all other businesses (including the 
other pieces split off from Microsoft) would create an environment 
far more conducive to creativity and productivity, and would benefit 
the consumers enormously. The current, proposed settlement would do 
little toward this end- in fact it would validate Microsoft's 
monopolistic business strategies and stifle innovation in software 
development. The arrogant attitude displayed by Microsoft executives 
during the trial is more than enough evidence to show that they have 
every intention of continuing these anti-competitive practices. This 
would make my job harder and the lives of all consumers less than 
they could be.
    Please reconsider the current, ill-advised settlement proposal, 
for the sake of all software developers and all consumers.
    Thank you,
    Matthew W. Wahlin
    3470 South Court
    Palo Alto, CA 94306 [email protected]



MTC-00020020

From: Skyler Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00020021

From: Charles Sutton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am commenting on the proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft 
antitrust case, pursuant to the Tunney Act. I am a graduate student 
in computer science, I have worked as a software engineer (never for 
a competitor of Microsoft's), and I have used Microsoft products for 
almost 15 years. I do not believe that the proposed Final Judgment 
is in the public interest.
    In particular, I am concerned about the definition middleware 
product in the settlement. As a software engineer, I know that 
Microsoft places much of its business Internet strategy in what it 
calls the .NET suite of applications, and the programming language 
C#. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says as much an interview with 
ComputerWorld magazine (By Carol Sliwa, January 14, 2002): 
``From my perspective, the theme over the next year is Web 
services, XML and .Net.'' Since many of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices involved the Internet (specifically, World 
Web Browsers), it seems that this is an oversight in the settlement. 
Because Microsoft produces the dominant Web browser--a 
dominance which was achieved illegally--Microsoft stands to 
gain if such services become popular. I believe that the Final 
Judgement should address this.
    In general, it seems to me that the settlement attempts more to 
prevent Microsoft from breaking the law in the future than it will 
do to restore competition in any of Microsoft's markets: Web 
browsers, office software, or operating systems. I do not believe 
that it will punish Microsoft for having broken the law.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Sutton



MTC-00020022

From: Benjamin Chadwick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:28am
Subject: No to current Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to register dissent with the current proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. I work in artistic fields: magazine 
writing and design, fiction writing, and journalism, but have also 
extensive training in hardware repair and computer programming. 
Since most workers in the arts have little computer training, I 
think it is especially important to register just how frustrating 
Microsoft products have been in these areas. Working with Microsoft 
products is always a challenge: trying to force the computer to do 
what I want, and then praying it doesn't crash in the process. 
However, few projects are solo projects; most must be written in a 
format everyone uses, and Microsoft's anticompetitive practices have 
made positioned its software with such formats to an audience 
unaware of their other options. Given the choice, I'll happily take 
free software, open, public, accountable for its failures, and 
written to higher standards with a philosophy of public benefit.
    It is important to me that the government not succumb to the 
wishes of Microsoft. The government is intended to serve the people 
as a whole. Allowing a corporation to dominate software, and crush 
its opposition through monopolistic market practices, hurts the 
public. It's quite simple and only differs from previous monopoly 
situations (and thus has fostered) through the relatively arcane 
nature of computers-just as a driver doesn't need to know 
chemistry to operate a car. Microsoft Word's tendency to crash 
during automatic backups (for example) has cost me pages and pages 
of my writing; while I have happily shifted to its rival 
Wordperfect, and to Linux as my OS, I can't say I've convinced many 
others to do so-even as they complain of Microsoft's 
irritations and crashes. Even if Linux had the same problems, the 
public would still benefit from the programmers'' (on both 
teams) drive to alleviate them; monopoly allows problems to grow 
like weeds through pavement, without remedy. In this way, the 
Microsoft monopoly has effectively had quite a chilling effect on 
the arts, and I honestly feel the arts have suffered from it. Though 
the options exist, there has been no effort by government, and 
obviously little from the industry itself, to promote their use.
    Specifically, I object to several aspects of the settlement:
    -Failure to open the barriers of entry for rival 
applications like WINE, a system for executing Windows APIs under 
Linux
    -Narrowly defining the scope of the provisions (for 
example, it fails to cover all Windows APIs).
    -Failure to prohibit anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    -Failure to prohibit intentional incompatibilities 
historically used by Microsoft (this was extremely irritating to 
those already disappointed by MS-DOS in the early 1990s, when 
Windows 3.1 became the standard and required Microsoft's DOS over 
its competitors').
    -Failure to prohibit anticompetitive practices towards 
OEMs
    Taken in sum, I feel the proposed settlement will be 
insufficient to curtail Microsoft's stranglehold on the software 
business, the public, and the arts.
    Sincerely,
    Benjamin Chadwick
    678 Old Hunt Way
    Herndon, VA 20170



MTC-00020023

From: Andrew Griffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've just read through the proposed settlemnet several times. I 
must say I believe it is weak, ineffective, and entirely too late. 
The propsed penalties might have been relevant a few years ago, but 
no longer. Microsoft has had judgements and remedies levied against 
it before, and has simply gone on doing whatever they feel they can 
get away with, and coming up with new and innovative ways to explain 
why ``this is different''.
    Thanks
    Andrew Griffin
    Theplanet.com Internet services, Inc.
    214.752.5581 x107
    [email protected]
    1950 Stemmons Frwy
    Dallas, TX 75207



MTC-00020024

From: Phil Barnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the currently proposed settlement is inadequate and 
an embarassment to justice and law abiding taxpayers everywhere. 
Ordering Microsoft to buy their way into another monopoly by having 
them donate proprietary operating systems to needy schools is not 
punishment. It is simply telling them that it's ok to monopolize yet 
another venue.
    Will this billion dollars worth of ``charity'' 
displace real business in the commercial operating system world? 
Will sales that would have gone to Microsoft's competitors be lost 
because school districts around the U.S. will be waiting in line for 
their free handout? Will this billion dollar fine actually 
strengthen Microsoft? I believe it will if it is carried out as 
currently proposed.
    If you want to actually punish Microsoft for their illegal 
activities, you should not do it by giving them a new market to take 
over. Instead, you should punish them by strengthening the 
competition that they have illegally gained monopolistic power over 
and plundered.
    I propose that any new Microsoft settlement to needy scools 
include: 50% of 


[[Page 26819]]
the settlement into computer hardware only. 20% of 
the settlement into network infrastructure. All computers purchased 
with this settlement money be installed with non-proprietary Linux 
Open Source operating systems and software.
    30% of the settlement will be used for education of the support 
personnel and teachers using these new open source operating 
systems. Linux is an excellent choice in Open Source operating 
systems. It is stable, capable, powerful, consistant and as easy to 
administer as any operating system that training is available for. 
There are many good mainstream Linux distributions available at low 
or no cost. Training and certification are available and should be 
encouraged in the support and educational infrastructure.
    Open Source operating systems have the benefit of being 
upgradable at little or no cost for the foreseeable future. If the 
schools to be helped are those with limited budgets, low upgrade 
costs will be very important over the life of the hardware. Also, 
Linux is more efficient with hardware and does not require the 
rigorous hardware upgrade schedule that Microsoft operating system 
upgrades require. This means the hardware purchased with this 
settlement money will be viable years longer with Linux than it 
would be with Microsoft's proprietary operating systems.
    If the current settlement is carried out, in a few years the 
schools with limited budgets will have obsolete operating system 
software needing to be replaced with billions of dollars of public 
money. And, to whom will this upgrade money go? Microsoft. That is 
not punishment. That is opportunity. If you want to punish Microsoft 
and at the same time remove the proprietary handcuffs that Microsoft 
has put on every Windows user, teach our children how to use Linux.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00020025

From: Pamela Boulais
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As a computer enthusiast and the wife of a professional software 
engineer, I am writing to provide input on the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. I believe that the settlement as proposed is 
not in the best interests of the American public. I further believe 
that the settlement would be harmful to the American economy, and is 
completely inadequate given the findings of fact in the 
trial-findings of fact which have been upheld by the Court of 
Appeals.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices run counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public-including the Federal Government itself-to 
bear increased costs, and deny them the products of the innovation 
which would otherwise be stimulated through competition. The finding 
of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict 
measures which address not only the practices they have engaged in 
in the past, but which also prevent them from engaging in other 
monopolistic practices in the future. This was a serious problem in 
the 1995 consent decree, and is even more serious of a problem with 
this settlement. It is my belief that a very strong set of 
strictures must be placed on convicted monopolists to insure that 
they are unable to continue their illegal activities. I do not think 
that the proposed settlement is strong enough to serve this 
function. Not only that, but the proposed settlement has NO 
provision for punitive damages against Microsoft for its actions in 
the past. An illegal monopoly should not be allowed to retain its 
ill-gotten gains while merely being warned against such conduct in 
the future. Due to Microsoft's size and large amount of cash 
reserves, any fine levied against them should be in the billions of 
dollars, else it will merely be ``shrugged off'' and the 
message will remain unheard.
    I urge the plaintiffs in this lawsuit to stand fast and not 
accept this settlement, which amounts to a slap on the wrist for 
Microsoft and a punch in the nose for the American public. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely yours,
    Pamela Boulais, Denver, Colorado
    Treasurer, Electric Minds Community 



MTC-00020026

From: Steve Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgment is inadequate to protect consumers 
from Microsoft's continued predatory, illegal practices. It is not 
``within the reaches of the public interest.'' (Bechtel 
Corp., 648 F.2d at 666) As a consumer my choices have been unfairly 
manipulated, usually without my knowledge, causing me to pay more 
for products that I desired (e.g. Microsoft Office for Mac), 
eliminating choices (e.g. forcing IE as default browser on Macs) or 
by forcing me to upgrade software in order to be able to share 
information with other computer users. I pray that the Department of 
Justice will enact a Judgment capable of stopping Microsoft's 
illegal practices, rather than a weak injunction that they consider 
mere nuisance.
    Steve Nelson
    8314 W 128th St
    Overland Park, KS 66213



MTC-00020027

From: Skyler Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is not to the consumers'' advantage 
and does not promote competition.



MTC-00020028

From: jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to go on record as opposing the proposed settlement 
in the anti-trust case of Microsoft v. United States. I have been a 
computer professional for 24 years. I don't believe that the 
proposed settlement is in the public's best interest. The proposed 
settlement is not even a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. The 
proposed settlement is too complex. The most effective remedy would 
be one that is very simple and straight-forward. Just as in software 
or systems design, the less complex the agreement, the easier it 
will be to ``debug.'' Microsoft was very innovative in 
finding loopholes in the 1995 Consent Decree, and it is my belief 
that they will be just as innovative in finding loopholes in this 
proposed agreement should it be accepted as is. To have come so far 
as to find Microsoft guilty of illegally maintaining it's Operating 
System monopoly, to have the Court of Appeals uphold this finding, 
and then to propose a settlement that does not include any 
provisions to punish Microsoft for its past behavior is 
irresponsible at best. The fact is Microsoft profitted from an 
illegal act. As a taxpayer I find it a shame that public tax dollars 
should be squandered in such a manner.
    As far as the future is concerned, I see no relief in this 
proposed settlement. When I purchase another computer, I must pay 
for a Microsoft Operating system, as well as an application bundle. 
There is no incentive for the Original Equipment Manufacturers to 
not preload the Microsoft Operating System and the application 
bundle. I would propose that a fitting punishment for Microsoft 
would be a stipulation that Microsoft pay for any added expense that 
Original Equipment Manufacturers incur to preload a non-Microsoft 
Operating System, for customers that request it. This stipulation 
would remain in effect until Microsoft no longer has an Operating 
System monopoly or for ten years, whichever comes first. It would 
provide an incentive to Original Equipment Manufacterers to offer 
alternatives to customers. If Microsoft truly has superior software, 
then they should have nothing to worry about, no one would want an 
alternative. On the other hand, if Microsoft software cannot compete 
with the alternatives, it won't be long until they no longer have a 
monopoly and competition is truly restored.
    Thanks for considering my opinions.
    Jeff Mohnkern
    124 Miner Street
    Middletown, CT 06457



MTC-00020029

From: stephen thomas dranger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a forward from a colleage of mine. I agree 
wholeheartedly with his sentiments.
    Stephen Dranger
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:10:54 -0600
From: ``Mike O'Donnell'' 

    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:


[[Page 26820]]
    I would like to comment on the proposed Final Judgment in United 
States v. Microsoft, as provided in the Tunney Act.
    I find that the proposed judgment is insufficient by a large 
margin to restore healthy competition in the computer operating 
systems and software application markets, so it is not in the public 
interest and should not be affirmed by the court.
    The proposed Final Judgment attempts to remedy Microsoft's 
established illegal anticompetitive practices by prohibiting 
particular forms of conduct involving overly restrictive licensing 
terms, terms that vary in order to reward those who accept and 
punish those who contest a Microsoft monopoly, and terms that make 
switching to competing products more difficult or more costly. It 
also prohibits certain forms of retaliation against OEMs who support 
products competing with Microsoft's products. It also requires 
Microsoft to disclose APIs and communication protocols for its 
products under certain circumstances and for certain purposes.
    It is inherently difficult, and perhaps impossible, to remedy 
Microsoft's particular forms of illegal anticompetitive behavior 
through conduct remedies. Both the underlying concepts in which 
conduct remedies are defined, and the particular anticompetitive 
techniques used by Microsoft change far too rapidly, and Microsoft 
itself has far too much influence on those changes, for them to 
serve in the foundation of effective conduct remedies.
    The remedies in the proposed judgment refer to concepts of 
``API,'' ``operating system,'' 
``middleware,'' ``application,'' ``platform 
software,'' ``top-level window,'' ``interface 
elements,'' ``icons,'' ``shortcuts,'' 
``menu entries.'' The definitions of these concepts are 
not robust and timeless. Compared to concepts in other branches of 
business and engineering they are relatively ephemeral, 
controversial, dependent on rapidly changing technological context, 
and subject to deliberate manipulation by Microsoft. For example, an 
``operating system'' in the 1960s was a software system to 
organize the basic functionality of a computer, and it contained 
little or no user interface code. In the 1970s ``operating 
systems'' often contained substantial collections of utility 
applications and rudimentary interactive user interfaces called 
``shells.'' In the 1980s, the X Window system was created 
as a form of what is now called ``middleware'' to provide 
a graphical interactive user interface, used widely in conjunction 
with Unix operating systems. Apple and Microsoft created similar 
graphical interactive user interfaces, but defined them to be parts 
of their operating systems, rather than additional middleware. In 
the near future, distributed and network computing are likely to 
make it quite difficult to determine the boundaries of a single 
operating system. In the past, Microsoft appears to have 
deliberately manipulated the boundaries of such conceptual 
categories to create and preserve a monopoly position, and I expect 
it to continue such practices in the future. The proposed judgment 
provides definitions that narrow these already problematic concepts 
even further, making them even more vulnerable to deterioration due 
to technological change and to manipulation by Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the particular conduct requirements in the proposed 
judgment are far too narrow. Every one of the requirements is weak 
in some way. For example, consider the requirement to 
``disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole 
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, 
... the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft 
Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System 
Product.'' Microsoft and other software vendors like to treat 
their Applications Product Interfaces (API) as intellectual 
property. But in good engineering practice these are key parts of 
the warrantable specifications of a product. This holds in 
particular for operating systems and middleware, which by their 
nature are especially intended for, suitable for, and often useless 
without interaction with other software products. APIs define the 
quality of that interaction, but they do not provide it. The 
implementation of an API in program code (which is naturally 
protected by trade secret, copyright, and patent law) provides the 
quality of interaction defined by an API. Without access to the 
complete API, the licensor of an operating system cannot employ the 
system freely in the way that good software engineering practice 
suggests. With complete public access to an API, a software company 
may still protect its implementation of the API, which contains the 
real value that it has created. Keeping an API secret does not 
correspond to keeping the inner workings of a product secret. 
Rather, it corresponds to keeping the precise function accomplished 
by that product secret.
    So the public interest calls for the widest possible 
dissemination of API documentation. But the proposed judgment 
explicitly calls for disclosure of APIs ``for the sole purpose 
of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product,'' 
and only the ``APIS and related Documentation that are used by 
Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System 
Product.'' This excludes the use of information about the API 
to provide competitive platforms for running Windows-compatible 
software. Keep in mind that Windows-compatible software does not 
necessarily come from Microsoft. Microsoft benefits from the value 
added to its operating system products by a large number of less 
powerful software houses that create Windows-compatible software. By 
holding the Windows operating system API secret, Microsoft in effect 
keeps crucial information about other companies'' software 
applications secret, denying those applications the value added by 
competing operating systems on which they may run. Compare the 
Windows market (and the preceding DOS market) to the Unix/Linux/
Posix market. Microsoft uses secret and changeable APIs to 
effectively eliminate competition to provide alternative operating 
systems running Windows applications. A competing operating system 
must use different APIs, and therefore cannot support all of the 
same applications. By contrast, the Posix standard is a completely 
public API for Unix/Linux. Various companies, such as Sun 
Microsystems, compete to provide different implementations of the 
Posix API. Consumers may run Unix/Linux applications on any of these 
operating systems.
    Similarly, in the hardware market for processors, the 
specification of the x86 instruction set architecture (the hardware 
analog to a software API), is public. As a result, AMD competes with 
Intel to implement that architecture, with immense benefit to the 
public interest. Similar publication of standards in the overall 
functionality of personal computers led to the immensely beneficial 
competition among makers of IBM-compatible PCs. The failure to 
disclose Windows operating system APIs destroys the possibility of 
similarly beneficial competition among vendors of operating systems. 
Very similar considerations to those raised above for APIs apply to 
communication protocols (for which the proposed judgment provides 
limited disclosure) and to file formats (not covered in the proposed 
judgment). Note that Adobe made full public disclosure of its 
PostScript and PDF formats, compared to Microsoft's secrecy 
regarding Word formats, and that this disclosure served the public 
interest immensely by promoting the wide availability of PostScript 
and PDF printers and viewers.
    There are many other detailed shortcomings of the proposed Final 
Judgment, including the remaining conduct restrictions and the 
enforcement methods. I expect that other correspondents will treat 
some of them.
    Sincerely yours,
    Michael J. O'Donnell
    Professor in Computer Science and the Physical Sciences 
Collegiate Division
    The University of Chicago
    Senior Fellow in the Computation Institute of
    The University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory
    cs mailing [email protected]
    http://mailman.cs.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/cs



MTC-00020030

From: Dave Basler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Though I use Microsoft's products, I understand the importance 
of competition. This has been the driving engine behind this 
country's incredible progress over the past 225 years by encouraging 
innovators and creators to build that better mouse trap. I'm 
concerned, though, that Microsoft's dominance in the area of 
operating systems and some applications may be starting to impede on 
other companies ability to compete in these areas. Though I 
certainly believe Microsoft has every right to compete in these 
areas, I''m hoping that a creative and/or innovative solution 
can be found that allows for healthy competition so that this 
country's driving engine can continue to flourish to the benefit of 
all Americans. Thank you for letting me voice my small opinion in 
this very large room.



[[Page 26821]]


    Sincerely;
    Dave Basler



MTC-00020031

From: claude felizardo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with most of Dan Kegel's comments that the proposed 
settlement is a bad idea.
    claude felizardo
    1624 leafwood drive
    monrovia, ca 91016
    home consumer, software developer



MTC-00020032

From: Don (038) Karen Schloeder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement...Put some TEETH back into it!
    The actions of Microsoft have continued to be monopolistic & 
belligerent...DO NOT dilute the settlement.



MTC-00020033

From: Boyd Fletcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:34am
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
    DOJ,
    A couple of ideas to consider regarding the Microsoft Antitrust 
case: 1) in the early 1990's MS released Windows 3.0. Shortly 
afterwards it released MS Office 4.x for Windows. This was was the 
driving reason behind the popularity of Windows. However, it should 
be noted that the major word processor at the time was Word Perfect 
and the major spreadsheet was Lotus 123. Within two years of the 
release of MS Office 4.x, Word Perfect and Lotus 123 had dropped 
from their number one spots to 2nd place and were losing ground 
rapidly. The major reasons behind their fall was their 
``late'' support of MS Windows platform (which MS had 
illegally forced most of the major computer vendors to ship with the 
new PCs.). The reasons for their slow creation of a windows version 
was MS's relucantance to provide sufficient information about the 
Windows API to 3rd party vendors with whom it completes. MS was 
essentially done with MS Office 4.x when Windows 3.0 was released. 
It took almost two years for Word Perfect and Lotus-123 to get fully 
functioning Windows versions. This is example of why the operating 
system part of the company and the application part need to be 
separate. Now MS control 95% of the Office suite market and their 
software only runs on Windows and MacOS. Lotus and WordPerfect (now 
owned by Corel) have less than 10% however their products run on 
most major operating systems including DOS, Unix, Solaris, Linux, 
MacOS, and Windows. The only office suite that is growing in use is 
the StarOffice (OpenOffice) suite from Sun Microsystems and they 
have had to make it open source and give it away free in order to 
complete with MS Office. Now how can this be good for competition 
when a company has to give software away in order to complete 
against a monopoly. How is maintaining this monopoly good for 
consumers? I like to have choice. If MS's had its way, there 
wouldn't be any choice.
    2) Look what MS did to Borland Corp. By not releasing APIs to 
its Windows operating until after it was released, MS gave its own 
products (esp Visual Basic and Visual C++) a significany leg up over 
the competition. Why buy Borland's product when MS's product was 
available when the operating system was released and was build with 
cooperation of the access to the operating systems'' 
developers. Borland had to reverse engineer parts of Windows to 
achieve the same functionality that Visual Basic/C++, a time 
consuming and costly process. Now Borland has switch almost entirely 
to Java and Delphi environments on Solaris, Linux, and Windows. At 
least in this realm they can complete since Microsoft application 
programmers don't have advantage of having the operating system 
developers in the next building. This country has always prided 
itself on competition and an open market economy. However, we as a 
country realized early on that a totally free market degenerates 
into a bunch of monopolies if allowed to grow unchecked. We created 
antitrust law to prevent monopolies from growing and reducing 
consumer choice and increasing prices. Please reconsider the MS 
settlement and proceed with proceeding to break up the company into 
four parts:
    1) Operating Systems
    2) Applications (Exchange, Office, Internet Explorer, SQL 
Server, Visual Studio, etc..)
    3) Entertainment and Education software (Games, Xbox, etc...)
    4) Media (MSN, MSNBC, MSN Broadband, etc...)
    One last example, in the late seventies/early eighties Sprint 
and MCI were successful in bringing litigation that lead to the 
break up of AT&T. In the 20 years since the AT&T breakup 
U.S. has seen a tremendous growth in Telecommunications including 
the largest fiber optic infrastructue in the world, the world's 
cheapest phone rates, the world's fastest and cheapest data lines 
(broadband) rates, thousands of different phones are available from 
hundreds of vendors, more fucntionality (like caller-id, call-
waiting, voice mail etc...) and more competition that in any other 
country in the world. This has been huge benefit to the consumer and 
the country. The government should use the AT&T breakup as and 
excellent example of when and why to breakup monopolies and 
Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly.,
    thanks,
    Boyd Fletcher
    4820 Condor Drive
    Chesapeake, VA 23321



MTC-00020034

From: [email protected]. hcvlny.cv.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Its no secret that any company (esp one protecting a monopoly) 
will try to crush alternatives. A legal route is one way to 
guarantee lawyers will respond best to those with the deepest 
pockets. Rather, the US govt spends billions on desktop software. 
Why not require document formats that encourage and leverage 
portability? This would provide ways for other software technologies 
to compete so we all win. The lynchpin of Microsofts domination has 
always been word and excel. While they are pretty good apps, their 
doc formats make it downright IMPOSSIBLE to interoperate with any 
other platform or doc formatting package. So, instead of beating 
them legally, the next rfq might include a riser of interoperability 
which would promote competition rather than just going with what MS 
thinks they need.
    The solution proposed by RedHat is a little nutty, but, its less 
ludicrous than MS's solution where they only seek to strength their 
grip on the academics. The more we all use Linux, the better we are 
all off. The internet was spawned outside the walls of MS, and the 
whole PLANET is now networked because TCP/IP is a terrific standard 
that we all leverage. Why shouldnt doc formats also have similar 
opportunity for standardization.
    The US Govt has the perfect oppty to leverage itself as a giant 
customer and it would help us all out. We all want to compete, but 
can't due to the leveraging of the Desktop OS against the Desktop 
application suite that enslaves us all to Mr Gates. Please choose 
your remedy very carefully.
    Thanks very much
    Sincerely,
    John Westerdale



MTC-00020036

From: Shelton Leslie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a BAD idea
    Shelton Leslie
    COMPU HELP
    541-688-2923 voice
    541-689-8342 fax
    www.compuhelpnow.com



MTC-00020037

From: Walter Bremer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I feel the the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. 
Their anticompetitive practices are continuing even today. True 
innovation in computing technologies is too important to the nation 
and world to have Microsoft preventing the competition to make it 
happen.
    Please, prevent Microsoft from continuing their anticompetitive 
practices-give Sun, Apple, and others the opportunity to bring 
innovative products to market.
    Thank you.
    Walter Bremer
    Walter Bremer, ASLA
    Professor
    Landscape Architecture Department
    Cal Poly State University
    San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
    (805)756-2813
    [email protected]



MTC-00020038

From: nat davis
To: Microsoft ATR


[[Page 26822]]


Date: 1/24/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    please do not allow the proposed settlement in the microsoft 
case. it is a bad idea.
    nathaniel davis
    chicago, il



MTC-00020039

From: Shane Kuntz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Microsoft must be forced to INCLUDE competitors in it's 
operating system distribution whenever they put any application 
software preloaded/bundled/alongside/near the Operating system. They 
must be forced to give up the browser market share they gained 
illegally. Put their Browser on the auction slab and prohibit them 
from creating any internet browsing software that in any way 
displays HTML or it's variants.
    Flat pricing for it's OS for all PC manufacturers/customers.
    No restrictions on what the PC manufacturer/customer has to 
include or not include on their PC.
    Any Microsoft application must be made available to third party 
developers to port to ANY operating system given that a share of the 
profits from such a port go back to Microsoft. This way, Microsoft 
operating systems will not have an application advantage over other 
OS entries or existing OS's. The third party must price the port 
within 20% (or within $20) of the Microsoft offering. Microsoft 
Office for Linux, Office for Solaris are two such examples.
    Any division of Microsoft that has more than 35% market share is 
to be spun off into it's own separate corporation. The software 
division that develops Office, namely. Any other division whether it 
is in existence today or not to be spun off if it retains >=35% 
market share for longer than 3 years. The OS monopoly is enough for 
one company to have that has proven they can't play fairly, no other 
monopoly or significant market share should be allowed to Microsoft. 
They will support java (in a form acceptable to Sun Microsystems) in 
every Operating system release. They will also support NFS and any 
other widely used open protocol instead of creating their own closed 
protocol to be used exclusively.
    Any possible application that promotes services, software or 
hardware in the Microsoft OS or Microsoft applications or a partner, 
a competitor will be included in the options in an equal position on 
the desktop or list of choices. For example Internet connection 
wizards including ALL ISP's. Lastly, I believe Microsoft owes 
restitution to Netscape and also should pay for the research and 
development of open standards for the benefit of all computer users.
    Violations of the rules should also be enforced swiftly and 
completely and accompanied by a large fine and restitution for their 
actions.
    Thank you for reading my suggestions,
    Shane Kuntz
    [email protected]



MTC-00020040

From: cory mckinstry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the current settlement terms between the DOJ and 
Microsoft is favoring Microsoft. They inhibit many of the ways that 
my company, Northrop Grumman, pursues and manages it's business 
practices. Microsoft is making all the rules and will continue to do 
so until it is forced to agree to ``OPEN LICENSE'' its 
operating systems.
    Thank you,
    Cory



MTC-00020041

From: curtis j brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is bad idea. I do NOT agree 
with it. I do NOT think it is fair for me as a consumer and that I 
will have little choice in the software I purchase in the future if 
the settlement continues.
    Not only am I a consumer, I am also a programmer, with a 
Bachelor's degree in Computer Science. Too many times have I seen 
Microsoft illegally use its monopolistic position to make sure that 
I and my clients have only one choice. Under Microsoft's licenses, 
we have little rights to freedom. Microsoft has gone to great 
lengths to eliminate any other competition. The proposed settlement 
does little to rectify that.
    Please reconsider the rights of the citizen's of the United 
States of America.
    Many thanks in advance for your time.
    Curtis Brown
    [email protected] (``Eat at Juno's'')



MTC-00020042

From: Stephen Krauth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgement fails to prevent Microsoft from 
creating proprietary versions of internationally standard protocols. 
In other words, Microsoft has in the past taken a known standard and 
changed it so that companies and individuals would be forced to use 
Microsoft products to communicate with the large installed base of 
other Microsoft users.
    Examples:
-Windows 2000 came out with a modified version of Kerberos, a 
standard network authentication protocol. They refused to release 
the changes to Kerberos to the public. Machines using the original 
version of the protocol were unable to communicate with the 
Microsoft version.
-Same thing with DHCP, a network configuration protocol. Other 
non-Microsoft machines can communicate with Microsoft DHCP, but it 
is known to cause severe disruption on a mixed network (network of 
machines with Microsoft and non-Microsoft machines).
    Analysts have coined the term ``embrace and extend'' 
to describe this practice.
    Microsoft has also modified standards in an attempt to destroy 
the standard; this practice has been deemed `embrace, extend 
and extinguish'.
    Example:
-Java. Java was meant to work across many computer platforms. 
Microsoft created a Windows only version, defeating this original 
purpose. Microsoft then encouraged web content creators to use 
Microsoft-only tools such as Active-X by failing to keep the 
Microsoft version of Java up-to-date with the original.
    Thank you for considering this information in your decision.
    Steve K.



MTC-00020043

From: Geoff Howland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ settlement is horrible, you have totally shirked your 
responsibilities in this case and provided them an easy out for 
criminal activities that effect the jobs of thousands and thousands 
of people as they shut out competitors and bully companies into 
using their substandard software.
    Stop rewarding crime!
    GH



MTC-00020044

From: Seth A. Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement does not place strict 
enough penalties on Microsoft.



MTC-00020045

From: Kensington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:36am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Settling with microsoft is a bad idea IMO. It will take more 
than the proposed settlement to set things right and loosen their 
stranglehold on the market.
    Ken Kumayama
    Northwestern University
    Integrated Science Program
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    (602) 938-3102



MTC-00020046

From: Joseph Duffy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    My name is Joseph Duffy. I am a professional programmer who uses 
Microsoft software, and especially Microsoft development tools every 
day. These tools experienced a renaissance while there was viable 
competition from companies like Borland. But since Microsoft head-
hunted Borland's staff and weakened other potential competitors like 
Java and the Netscape browser, the work has stagnated. There hasn't 
been a major new feature since 96.
    I am opposed to the settlement because we've already tried to 
restrict Microsoft's conduct with restrictions and it failed. The 
taxpayers would have been saved a great deal of money on this trial 
if that original settlement had been more foresighted, to say 
nothing of the innovations that might have 



[[Page 26823]]


come from the different ideas of more small and nimble competitors. 
If conduct measures are used, the penalty for misconduct must be 
powerful enough to act as a deterrent, like opening of source code 
or company breakup. I am a real person and this is the only letter 
I will send to you. I say this because Microsoft has several times 
in the past has been found to use the dishonest tactic of ``stuffing 
ballot boxes'' in order to create the illusion of 
``grassroots'' support for its position.
    Thank you for listening.
    Joseph Duffy



MTC-00020047

From: David Frost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The short version of my opinion is as follows.....
    Based on the collective readings that I have done on the 
subject, the proposed settlement sounds like Charles Manson getting 
to pick his own punishment. Microsoft has so little respect for the 
law that during the original trial it presented obviously falsified 
evidence, claimed no knowledge on subjects very near and dear to 
their business, and made ludicrous claims of technical 
impossibilities. The proposed settlement in its current form has so 
many loopholes that there will be no way to enforce it. Where will 
we be if claims of manipulation are made against Microsoft months or 
years later? We'll be forced to pay for another multi-year trial, 
after which MS will be found guilty, and just like the consent 
decree and this procedure, we will end up doing so little that it 
really won't matter.
    I say we make the restrictions and monitoring procedures fit the 
violations proven. Also, it would be wise to not limit such 
penalties to specific titles, as this makes it too easy to get 
around the law by creating new titles that are somewhat different in 
functionality (hence a new ``type'' of software), that is 
not covered in the anti-trust ruling.
    If this settlement is accepted, the people who have been wronged 
will continue to be wronged...just in a slightly different way.
    David Frost



MTC-00020048

From: Marc Visconte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft is a monopoly.
    As a staunch Libertarian, my normal views are that there is too 
much government interference in both business and the lives of 
individuals. In the case of Microsoft, I may have to reverse my 
normal stance and concede that:
    a) sometimes there is such a thing as a corporation that is too 
large and/ or uncontrolled, and
    b) in spite of my belief in the free market, no matter how 
beneficial to the consumer a business'' actions are, some 
business practices are abusive. If a business'' way of doing 
business is unfair and monopolistic, it should be punished by the 
legal system.
    I believe that Microsoft has operated in an unfair manner, and 
that other companies (and consumers) suffered because of it.
    For the government to take MS to court, and then IGNORE 
MS'' actions, grants a tacit approval to unfair business 
practices. For the fairness to consumers and to other businesses, 
the government should step in and punish Microsoft.
    Marc Visconte



MTC-00020049

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:39am
Subject: Sue Sue Sue
    Dear DOJ,
    It seems that about once a month I see the Attorney General of 
CT. on television announcing his newest victum. And of course he is 
the biggest opponent to the remaining states settling with 
Microsoft. It really appears that our judicial system anymore mostly 
serves the trial lawyers and politicians.
    Microsoft beat its competition and serves its customers very 
well.
    Thank you.
    Richard Stouts



MTC-00020050

From: Scott Finkeldei
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement for the Microsoft Anit-trust case is bad 
idea. It will basically allow Microsoft to buy its way out of the 
situation without forcing any substantive change.
    Microsoft is currently giving away free preview copies of XP in 
the U.S. Post Office and several shipping companies as I understand. 
This seems like they are using the U.S. govt as a way to promote 
their monopoly even as the case is being resolved.
    please consider working out a different settlement. thank you 
for your time.
    sf
    Scott Finkeldei
    Assistant Director of Information Systems
    Division of Continuing Education
    Kansas State University
    51 College Court Bldg
    Manhattan, KS 66506
    [email protected]
    785-532-2585



MTC-00020051

From: Mike Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00020052

From: bryanrbaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am NOT in favor of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
Anti-trust case.
    Firstly, when in the history of jurisprudence has society 
allowed criminals to set the terms of their own punishment? The 
settlement proposed by the DOJ does not substantively differ from 
the settlement that Microsoft proposed. They have been found guilty. 
Why then are they allowed to set the terms of their punishment?
    Secondly the States dissenting from the DOJ make many cogent 
arguments in their proposal. Overall it seems to have much more 
emphasis on the spirit and intentions of anti-trust laws as they 
exist. This focus is on the protection of the consuming public and 
the promotion of fair competition.
    I would like to pay particular attention to section L of the 
States proposal, in which the States pay attention to a particularly 
nasty method that Microsoft has been developing to deal with the 
threat of technology that is not linked to companies that can be 
bought or forced out of business. Microsoft adopts standards, then 
proceeds to ``extend'' them at will until the Microsoft 
version is incompatible with the open standard, which they use as 
leverage to keep consumers locked into a ``Windows Only'' 
environment. This is one of their most disastrous strategies for 
consumers and competition.
    ==Quoted from the States Proposal==
    L. Adherence to Industry Standards
    A common tactic in Microsoft1s unlawful monopoly maintenance was 
the limitation on interoperability with potential competitors. This 
has been accomplished, on occasion, by co-opting and/or undermining 
the industry standards for software developers. Microsoft also 
purposely deceived software developers into believing that the 
Microsoft Java programming tools had cross-platform capability with 
Sun-based Java:
    16. Adherence to Industry Standards.
    a. Compliance With Standards. If Microsoft publicly claims that 
any of its products are compliant with any technical standard 
(``Standard'') that has been approved by, or has been 
submitted to and is under consideration by, any organization or 
group that sets standards (a ``Standard-Setting Body''), 
it shall comply with that Standard. If Microsoft chooses to extend 
or modify the implementation of that Standard, Microsoft shall 
continue fully to implement the Standard (as that Standard may be 
modified from time to time by the Standard-Setting Body). Microsoft 
shall continue to implement the Standard until: (i) Microsoft 
publicly disclaims that it implements that Standard; or (ii) the 
Standard expires or is rescinded by the standard-setting body. 
However, Microsoft shall not be permitted to require third parties 
to use or adopt Microsoft1s version of the Standard. To the extent 
Microsoft develops a proprietary version of a Standard, Microsoft1s 
Operating Systems must continue to support non-proprietary, industry 
versions of such Standard.
    b. Compliance With De Facto Standards. As to any Standard with 
which Microsoft is required to comply under the preceding paragraph, 
to the extent that industry custom and practice recognizes 
compliance with the Standard to include variations from the formal 
definition of that Standard (a ``De Facto Standard''), 
Microsoft may discharge its obligations under this provision by 
complying with the de facto Standard provided that: (i) before doing 
so, Microsoft notifies Plaintiffs and the Special Master in writing 
of its intention to do so, and describes with reasonable 
particularity the 


[[Page 26824]]


variations included in the De Facto Standard; and 
(ii) Plaintiffs do not, within 30 days of receipt of such notice, 
object to Microsoft1s intention to comply with the De Facto 
Standard. == end quote ==
    Please think carefully before unleashing a brazen and emboldened 
(since there is no punishment here) Microsoft on the citizens of 
this country. That is what will happen if Microsoft is allowed to 
get off with their own definition of a punishment.
    Bryan Baker



MTC-00020053

From: Daniel Grm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:40am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
    To whom this e-mail may concern,
    I beleive that the settlement made with microsoft is unfair. I 
feel that Microsoft has been portrayed as something it is not. 
Micorsoft is not monopoly they just make a good product. The reason 
that a company like Netscape who makes a browser that competes with 
Microsoft's Internet explorer is losing market share is not due to 
monopolistic practices bey Microsoft, but due to the fact that they 
have created a inferior product to that of microsoft's. I beleive 
that most of these companys instead of producing a good product they 
are attempting to take down microsoft by underhanded means of 
claiming they are a monopoly. I beleive the whole case brought 
against microsoft is wrong and I hop eyou use your great wisdom to 
rectify this situation.
    Sincerly,
    Daniel Grm



MTC-00020054

From: Tim Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    OPPOSED !!!! Its toothless. How much did they pay lobbiest to 
get this settlement?
    As an owner of a small software company I can tell you we are in 
constant fear of Micro$oft's monopoly power. Cannot say anything 
they do not like or cannot do anything they do not like or they put 
you out of business by taking away your licenses (one you already 
paid for). We just search for a niche in the market and hope MS does 
not copy our good ideas and then give the product away to put us out 
of business.
    How is it a foreign company gets tariffs for selling things 
below the cost of product, but MS does not?
    They just do it and call it innovation, its part of the OS. The 
DoJ went to the trouble of proving MS guilty of monopolistic 
practices and then as punishment you give them a toothless 
``punishment''. One that is actually a MS marketing plan 
in disguise.
    Tim Jensen
    VP Realtime Fantasy Sports
    Senoir Designer Federated Software Group



MTC-00020055

From: Eric Weis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:40am
Subject: Fwd: The Tunney Act. Microsoft Settelment Rejection Notice
    Note'' forwarded message attached.
    This is the deadline for comments on the Microsoft Settelment 
from the public * Now as some of you know I am not one for 
``chain letters'' but this time I can't think of a better 
way of getting a good volume of mail generated in a short peroid of 
time.
    The Proposed Microsoft settelment is a failure* This is 
according to nearly all the anaylsis by lawyers, industry advocates, 
and anyone involved in the case. The DOJ needs to hear from the 
people in the public comment peroid to let them know that it is not 
enough, and time is almost out. Let your voice be heard.
    Remember it is the number of email the DOJ gets that counts, so 
lets generate some traffic on their mail servers* Just follow the 
instructions below.
    1) Please forward this to [email protected]
    2) Forward this to everyone you know and get them to do the 
same.
    Thank you for your time
    Stephen Berens
    Founder of the Western Alliance
    Form letter follows
    Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement
    If you'd like to co-sign this open letter, please email me at 
[email protected], and please give your city, state, title, 
and affiliation.
    -Dan Kegel
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, we wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. We agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html ), namely:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry- by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    ?? The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    ?? The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines 
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version 
of Windows might not be covered at all.
    ?? The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft. NET 
with competing middleware.
    ?? The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    ?? The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    ?? The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after 
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    ?? The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    ?? The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    ?? The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    ?? Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    ?? Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    ?? Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system- 
even for computers running competing operating systems such as 
Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 
consent decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    ?? Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
    ?? The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    ?? The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs-including regional `white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems-who ship competing software.
    ?? The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. We also agree with the conclusion reached by 
that document, namely that the Proposed 


[[Page 26825]]


Final Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the emergence 
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is therefore 
not in the public interest. It should not be adopted without 
substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,




MTC-00020055-0004
    01/29/2002 8:07 P





MTC-00020056

From: Robert A. Klahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings Department of Justice:
    I am writing this short note to voice my comments on the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement. My views can be summed up in short as 
this: It does not go anywhere near far enough, and should be 
abandoned in favor of a stronger settlement which would result in 
the Operating System and Application Development portions of 
Microsoft being split into two different companies.
    There are a few specific points of concern that I would like to 
address on top of this summary, in the likely event that you do not 
adopt my larger views on the Settlement expressed above.
    * The section which reads ``Microsoft may restrict an OEM 
from displaying icons, shortcuts or menu entries specified in the 
Windows documentation as being limited to products that provide 
particular types of functionality, provided that the restrictions 
are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft and Microsoft 
products. ...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.'' would seem to provide 
Microsoft with sole determining power as to look and feel on the 
desktop of competing products, at least among those products in 
direct competition with Microsoft -Application- 
products. Given Microsoft's past illegal behavior in regards 
to competing Hypertext browsers, I am leery to extend such an anti-
competitive power to the company that controls the look and feel of 
the -Operating System-.
    * There is a section which would appear to permits the removal 
of Microsoft Middleware software, but permits the retention of such 
software on the computer in question as long as: ``1. that 
Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in 
interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the 
context of general Web browsing), or 2. that designated Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable 
technical requirement (e.g. a requirement to be able to host a 
particular ActiveX control) that is necessary for valid technical 
reasons to supply the end user with functionality consistent with a 
Windows Operating System Product, provided that the technical 
reasons are described in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that 
requests them.'' As a computer security professional, I find 
the implications of this stunning, in that, the Settlement permits 
Microsoft to hide the non-removal of software components to the end 
user. How is any system to be determined to be secure if the 
possibility of determining the software installed on said system is 
not possible? In this age of virus, worms, etc. in the Internet 
world, this is becoming a more and more important topic.
    I could go on, but these are, to me, the major points. In short, 
I urge you to abandon this Settlement, and retry for something 
stronger. Former Attorney General Robert Kennedy once said 
``Too much power scares me, whether we find it in a trade union 
or in a corporation.'' This should be the guiding principle of 
this or any other anti-trust Settlement, and I am afraid that I must 
conclude that this Settlement leaves too much power in the hands of 
the Microsoft Corporation.
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    -
    Robert A. Klahn
    [email protected]
    AIM: rklahn
    Yahoo Messenger: klahn
    IRC: [email protected]
    St. Augustine



MTC-00020057

From: Bob Jarmak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not address any of the important 
issues of the case. Microsoft corp. has established a long history 
of predatory and anti-competitive behavior.
    It seems logical that the best solution would be to estimate the 
economic impact of these actions and fine the company an appropriate 
amount. In addition, the importance of computers dictates that 
Microsoft be regulated closely, much like a public utility company.
    States should have to authority to approve any pricing, and the 
company should be limited to a return commensurate with a 
monopolistic corporation, 6-9% per year.
    The proposed settlement is a poor one in every way, and 
unacceptable in any rational analysis. If approved, they will 
continue their illegal predatory practices.
    Bob Jarmak



MTC-00020058

From: David Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposal for the Microsoft settlement does not go 
far enough as a remedy that will curtail similar practices in the 
company's future. In every logical sense it rewards Microsoft's 
behaviors by expanding it's reach.
    Many within that circle are refer to the proposal as ``a 
victory over the government.'' Sadly this may be recorded as a 
failing of our system to follow through.
    A settlement for the sake of settlement alone is not justice, 
but criminal. The finding of fact which confirms that Microsoft 
functions as a monopoly should not be a ignored out of convenience.
    It is my belief that the penalty should reflect the findings of 
the court. The proposed settlement is slipshod and not strong enough 
to levy any real penalty at all.
    As an concerned citizen, I'm against the current settlement 
Microsoft is pushing for.
    Sincerely,
    David Smith



MTC-00020059

From: Beth Bremmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a tech-savvy voter who is opposed to the Microsoft 
settlement because it does not adequately compensate the people and 
businesses of the US nor is it strict enough to prevent further 
uncompetitive behavior.
    b. bremmer
    huntingtom beach, ca 92647



MTC-00020060

From: Trimurti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is so devoid of the original intentions 
that it is ridiculous. First we were to decide if Microsoft was a 
monopoly, then take appropriate actions. So, Microsoft should be 
split up and monitored. Then it was down to let's leave them 
together but still monitor them. Next came letting them monitor 
themselves. Now, in addition to monitoring themselves, they have re-
written the entire proposal to sound like a Microsoft EULA. There is 
nothing but work-arounds in there. All Microsoft has to do is to 
holler there may be a security breach and all deals are null and 
void. This isn't any kind of proposal.
    This is just the government's way of encouraging monopolies and 
discouraging small business. I'm very ashamed that my entire 
Department of Justice and United States Government can be so readily 
defeated and humiliated by Microsoft. I'm so ashamed of you.
    Dave



MTC-00020061

From: Craig S. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:44am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I'm writing to express my concern for the federal government's 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. From what I can understand, I 
see little in the settlement that would discourage this company from 
continuing to engage in anti-competitive practices in the future. 
Contrary to Microsoft's claim, this company has done little to 
advance computer products and software. In particular, their product 
design seems to be more oriented towards trapping users into their 
formats and protocols than offering consumers something useful and 
effective.
    I urge you to reconsider the current settlement and consider a 
remedy that really would discourage practices that have already been 
demonstrated as being unfair and anti-competitive.
    Craig Miller
    1334 W. Newport Ave.



[[Page 26826]]


    Chicago, IL 60657



MTC-00020062

From: Saist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hey idiots. Do the world a favor. break Microsoft up.



MTC-00020063

From: Nathan Medbery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to voice my concern over what I consider a weak 
final judgment in the government case against Microsoft. Your own 
findings show that Microsoft has indeed acted as a monopoly in many 
cases, and has acted improperly in further dealings with many 
companies and technologies in the market.
    They have squashed entire companies and technologies (some by 
perfectly legal and acceptable means, others by unfair/monopolistic 
advantages), and used their legal clout to block further development 
of various products, even when they had little or not legal ground 
to stand on. Because they have deep pockets and can fund as many 
legal proceedings as necessary (indefinitely I might add), they can 
indirectly ruin smaller companies that do not have the funding to 
defend themselves, regardless of who is right or wrong.
    Your proposal is nothing more than a mild slap on the wrist, and 
a forced re-posturing of their products as they come to market 
(especially via OEM distribution outlets). What is to stop Microsoft 
from continuing its bullying of companies and of the market in 
general? There is nothing in your proposal that punishes them for 
what they have already done, other than making them change how they 
go about some things. Well, not to the extent that I believe they 
should be punished at least. And what about Microsoft's habit of 
bringing more and more technology into their products (especially 
their Windows Operating System) that would normally (and should) be 
left to other parties to produce? If nothing else, they should have 
to distribute certain technologies separately from their OS, even if 
it's free. You found that they unfairly distributed their web 
browser. The same is happening in many other cases, and will not be 
hindered by your judgment.
    All in all, I just don't believe you are truly punishing 
Microsoft enough for their blatant use of monopolistic power, nor do 
I believe you proposed limitations would change how Microsoft 
behaves in the end. That is simply my opinion.
    -Nathan Medbery



MTC-00020064

From: Jomo Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:50am
Subject: Dear Sir, Madam,
    Dear Sir, Madam,
    Thank you for excepting my comments I as an individual am very 
upset at the settlement proposed by the DOJ. I can not begin to 
understand why the DOJ went out of its way to excuse Microsoft for 
law's they have broken. I do not see the DOJ playing the role of a 
Prosecutor, but as an ally. I mean to say, from looking at the 
settlement It seems as if the DOJ is helping Microsoft continue to 
suppress technology that conflicts with the Windows desktop. I 
understand the importance of the war against terror, but I can not 
except that as an excuse for injustice . I have no fear that you 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will reject the proposal brought by the 
DOJ.
    Thank you for excepting my comments.
    Jomo K. Brown



MTC-00020065

From: Prosser, Ryan R.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the settlement that has been proposed will 
fix or even Address all of the problems of ``Microsoft Anti-
competitive'' Practices. Microsoft is the only OS choice for 
90-95% of computers bought. And with there market share they 
then are able to push their products On to the consumer by having 
them integrated into the Operating System. From MSN messenger to 
Internet Explorer. Since computers are Hard for most people to 
learn, people only use what is installed on their Computer when they 
buy it. I understand that Microsoft states they are Helping the end 
user, but they are destroying the rest of the industry. Microsoft 
will use it's shady business practices to force computer 
Manufactures to only install Microsoft OS and Microsoft Office. 
Until the end consumer is educated, on computers and the industry, 
they will not understand truly how Microsoft is hindering the entire 
Computer industry.
    Microsoft try's not to use standards but develop there own 
products That are then non-compatible with other companies products. 
But why Would they do this? Because They have the desktop market and 
can freely Push there new ``non standard'' software to 
everyone when they by a new Computer or update Windows.
    I urge you to look at the true impact that Microsoft is causing 
on the Industry.
    Ryan Prosser



MTC-00020066

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement for Microsoft is a bad idea.
    William Gierach



MTC-00020067

From: Justin Whitney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 7:55pm
Subject: PFJ must be altered
    To whom it may concern,
    The PFJ as it stands is flawed in a number of ways, to my 
thinking.
    Below is an excerpt from Dan Kegel's comprehensive essay on the 
subject that highlights one of the most important oversights in my 
opinion:
    ``The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' and ``API'' means that Section 
III.D.'s requirement to release information about Windows interfaces 
would not cover many important interfaces.The PFJ's overly narrow 
definitions of ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' and 
``API'' means that Section III.D.'s requirement to release 
information about Windows interfaces would not cover many important 
interfaces.'' The PFJ must be altered in order to be affective, 
and the above is but one of a number of ways in which this should 
take place. I strongly urge those who are able to reconsider the 
PFJ, taking the comments of those most familiar with the subject 
into consideration; for they are truly relevant and necessary lest 
the judgement be ineffective.
    Sincerely,
    Justin Whitney



MTC-00020068

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The attached letter is sent in support of Microsoft in the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    Angela Pearce
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for the 
proposed settlement of the antitrust lawsuit between the federal 
government and Microsoft. I know that you are not responsible for 
bringing this lawsuit and that you are somewhat constrained in your 
options in disposing of the case given its history. I applaud you 
for reaching the settlement and making the best of a bad situation.
    From what I heard about the settlement agreement, Microsoft has 
agreed to significant changes in the way it does business. Consumers 
will certainly benefit from Microsoft's agreement to allow 
competition from non- Microsoft programs within Windows. I think 
consumers and computer makers will also benefit from the new pricing 
practices established by the settlement.
    All in all, I think the settlement agreement is a good thing for 
our economy. I hope that you allow it to remain in place in its 
present form. Thank you for considering my point of view.
    Sincerely,
    Angela Pearce
    00020068-0002



MTC-00020069

From: Langtry, Nathan Frederick (UMC-Student)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00020070

From: Archon de Gaul


[[Page 26827]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to point out that Microsoft has entered into 
``consent decrees'' in the past and has been proven to 
have broken its'' agreement(s) on a number of occasions. I 
refer to the preceeding Microsoft/Caldera case, the Microsoft/
Netscape case, the Microsoft/Sun case, the Microsoft/IBM case, et. 
al. I am unhappy with the way the current DOJ staff have, in my 
opinion, dropped the ball in this case. I specifically refer to the 
fact that, when the appeals court remanded the case and struck the 
verdicts of Judge Penfield, some issues that, in my opinion, should 
have been re-addressed include: the potentially-illegal tieing of 
browser software, the equally-potentially-illegal (hijacking) 
extension of standards (re: Sun/Java) and the strong-arming of 
potential competition. (Dell, Gateway, IBM, etc's complaints that MS 
won't allow them to customize the desktop with certain icons, 
browsers or operating systems.) There has been an incredible amount 
of written material generated by these cases, so I won't spend the 
time regurgitating it here, but I would simply like to ask that the 
DOJ do what it originally set out to do under another, admittedly 
less pro-big-business, administration and represent 
``JUSTICE''. What Microsoft does to competition and the 
free market is not justice, it is bullying. Represent the people and 
protect the free market.
    As a small business owner, I need the barriers to entry lowered 
in a number of areas just to have a chance to survive in the waters 
with the other big fish. I believe businesses like mine have 
something to offer the people of the world and I believe just as 
fervently that enormous monopolies like Microsoft squelch any chance 
people like me have to innovate. Without giving up my patents and 
ideas to bigger fish to market and develop for me, I can't hope to 
penetrate even a regional market.. but any potential ``big 
fish'' I might ally myself with are afraid of repercusions with 
Microsoft. This sort of Mafia-style business practice can't be 
tolerated in this day and age. Please do the right thing; don't 
throw in the towel.
    Thank you in advance,
    Stewart Davis
    -Infinite Computer Solutions, Inc.



MTC-00020071

From: Stacey and Tim Conley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you in advance for reading this. The settlement that 
microsoft agrees to would only solidify their market share. 
Tendendancy to believe that something given is actually free, turns 
a blind eye from Microsoft's real intentions. Microsoft only wishes 
to stifle any real choice of future consumers by creating false 
trust and familiarity with Microsoft product.
    Have Microsoft give the money ,otherwise spent in their own 
interests,to schools, who may then buy what the schools would 
benefit from, not Microsoft.
    Please don't let Microsoft use this as an oportunity to their 
own gain.
    My Opinion, Tim Conley



MTC-00020072

From: Sailers John S PORT
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 1:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I live in a country where I am free to make many different 
choices as to how I choose to spend my money, use my time, and 
choose the lifestyle that fits me best, EXCEPT when it comes to 
spending my money on my choice of computer operating system, or 
spending my time using my choice of computer operating system, or 
choosing a computer operating system that reflects my preferences.
    If I am not going to be able to have a choice, my other option 
is to not spend ANY money, or spend ANY time using ANY computer. 
Microsoft HAS hurt the computer industry by preventing people from 
having ANY choice of product and ideas.
    If the rest of the US culture had the same history as the 
computer operating system, we would all be driving the same vehicle 
(even if it wasn't appropriate), eating at the only restaraunt 
(McDonalds, no Thai, no Chinese, no Steakhouses, no Italian, 
etc...), shopping at the only store in town (Walmart), and having to 
suffer with a cable TV monopoly (see, it's already starting...). I 
am infuriated by the ignorance of the American public towards the 
DANGER of the Microsoft monopoly.
    John S. Sailers
    13 Linda Ave.
    Dover, NH
    [email protected]



MTC-00020073

From: Peter Obregozo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Obregozo



MTC-00020074

From: Dave Cottingham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take this opportunity to comment on a few of the 
ways the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in USA vs. Microsoft fails 
to meet the requirement under the law of curbing future 
anitcompetitive behavior. In specifying to whom Microsoft must 
disclose documentation of APIs and protocols, the PFJ contains so 
many loopholes that Microsoft could deny access to this information 
at will. These restrictions are unnecessary: Microsoft should be 
required to make these disclosures publicly, not to selected third 
parties. Restricting this information only serves anticompetitive 
purposes.
    The description of which APIs and protocols must be disclosed is 
quite narrow and full of loopholes. In particular, the exclusion 
from disclosure of ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, and authentication 
systems'' must be lifted, as almost any API will contain these 
elements, and interoperability will be impossible without knowledge 
of these aspects of the system.
    The Technical Committee as described in the PFJ will be 
powerless to verify compliance. All members of this committee should 
be appointed by the court, not by Microsoft; they should be paid by 
the government, not Microsoft; they should have real investigative 
powers; and so far from being barred from disclosing compliance 
violations, the committee should be required to publicly report 
them.
    Please consider modifying the PFJ to make it effective. This is 
not the first time Microsoft has been through the courts on 
antitrust violations; it would be to the benefit of the American 
people to fix the problem this time.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Cottingham



MTC-00020075

From: Bill Bowker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since we the public are allowed to put in our ``2 cents 
worth'' so to speak I thought I would interject my thoughts on 
the matter. I think the bundling of internet explorer with the 
microsoft operating system is quite within their right as a software 
developer. much as in the same way some of the complaining parties 
(IE: AOL/Time Warner) bundle the very same explorer into their 
software. funny that AOL who OWNS Netscape but continues to still 
bundle Internet Explorer with their software. There was a point when 
they included both Netscape and Internet Explorer versions but due 
to PUBLIC opinion they havn't bundled it for some time. Continually 
I have read about how IE (Internet explorer) has been bundled 
``unfairly'' and how you couldn't install any competitive 
browser on a windows machine? As a computer technician I would have 
to ask has anyone looking at this case actually used a computer 
before????? as a computer user from almost the first computer 
available I have used internet software since there was an internet. 
First came Mosaic, which was developed and was supposed to be free. 
though there were many ``flavors'' of it out there and 
most charged for the better versions. all of which really sucked.... 
then came Netscape. They were the first company to give away their 
browser, which is interesting since they are one of the prime 
companies complaining about Microsoft giving away their browser! At 
first Microsoft sold their browser and it wasn't very good at all in 
the beginning. But as they began to develop their code it because 
quite good and then they started giving it away. A practice that is 
continued to today. I read about the decline of Netscape's market 
share and how it was leveraged away by Microsoft. Well I suppose 
that's probably what they would love people to think, however the 
reality is that their super buggy software became the focal point of 
discussion all over the net. New releases yielded a new level of 
horrors each time. constant crashing and problems almost from the 
start. Then started the Number war between the two 


[[Page 26828]]


companies having similar number schemes so as to confuse the average 
computer user I suppose. Well it never worked. the reason people 
started to use Internet Explorer over Netscape (myself included) 
was that after paying for their software in the ``retail'' version, 
which was escentially the same version packaged with more 
bookmarks.........what a ripoff. Was that IE jumped on the standards 
bandwaggon and pushed the envelope of standards for the web. Like 
the puzzling fact that JavaScript while being developed by Netscape 
currently does not even RUN on a Netscape browser properly, or at 
all in most cases. Or more puzzling that even their own Homepage 
cannot be properly displayed using their own software? It would be 
funny if it wasn't sad. So rather then coding a better software 
package that would compete with Microsoft on an even keel or blow 
their doors off. They have resorted to petty lawsuits that seem to 
have interesting timing relating to decreases in their stock value. 
An interesting correlation. I also find several holes in the 
validity of the internet supremacy as well since AOL is the largest 
ISP in the US as has been since way before this lawsuit. Part of the 
government agreement in the whole AOL/TimeWarner merger was to open 
up their instant messaging service. Funny that this still hasn't 
happened and nothing has happened to them.... But i'm sure if 
Microsoft was in their shoes it would be a big deal! And gee, why 
can't microsoft automatically download and install updates to their 
software but AOL can and has for years? Netscape has the whining 
power of AOL behind them and has coded one of the crappiest browsers 
in years, their current version 6.21. which is coded in java. Ahhh 
Java, one of the suckiest technologies to come down the programming 
pike in years. And why exactly should microsoft be forced to include 
a Java compi ler into their Operating system anyway. Under their 
agreement settlement with SUN they have removed the capability from 
their software to rely on SUN for the components. and if you have 
ever ran a java program then you would have seen the advantage of 
using the microsoft optimized JRE engine compared to the crummy SUN 
version that takes a million years to run. It's quite easy to think 
of the ``beauty'' of having computer code that runs the 
same on every platform. Looks great on paper but in actual use it 
doesn't work that way. You end up with non optimized code that runs 
crappy on every platform universally. Of course it runs great on SUN 
systems, conviently. And if you truly think that 
``making'' Microsoft unbundle Internet Explorer is going 
to be the solution for your smoking gun you are sadly mistaken. Gee, 
then the average consumer will just have to spend even MORE money to 
purchase the operating system and have all the goodies. It seems to 
me the last fiasco the government made regarding Microsoft was 
forcing them to unbundle the ``Plus Pack'' from windows. 
So that we the users of it could pay more yet again! And then of 
course there was checking into the pricing of Windows......and how 
Microsoft was charging consumers too much for their product when it 
was in fact the same price as Apple was selling their operating 
system for as well. DOI. But then there is never much thought as to 
what the average user has to due with it, it's always pressured by 
money and big business. It certainly doesn't mean that Microsoft 
codes the best software in the world because they don't, far from 
it. But it's also not like their are others jumping at the chance to 
create a new operating system for the Intel platform. Linux is out 
there but frankly isn't catching on very well at all. and certainly 
the government has a TON of responsibility as well, since it is the 
largest purchaser of computer software in the world. As the largest 
purchaser you certainly could have chosen a different platform had 
you wanted too, be it Macintosh OS or Unix but chose not too. well 
my rambling is over now. just wanted to share my thoughts. Bill



MTC-00020076

From: Glasscock Family
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 12:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the current DOJ-Microsoft Settlement. I think 
this is a poorly crafted agreement that does nothing to slow down 
the Microsoft monopoly of the desktop operating system. I especially 
am opposed to the continued ``middleware bundling'' and 
the inability of OEMs to modify the desktop. Not all desktops have 
to be done the MS way.
    Joe Glasscock
    1232 Playfield
    Prosser, WA 99350



MTC-00020077

From: Monique Gennari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:01am
Subject: Against Microsoft Settlement
    I am unhappy with the proposed Microsoft settlement as it does 
little to protect the companies that were harmed, which is necessary 
to restore competition to the software industry. I am a Mac user, 
which is one of the last realistic choices if one does not want to 
use Windows. Problem is Microsoft has a history of forcing Apple to 
stop competing in exchange for software or services that Apple needs 
to stay in business. One example is Microsoft Office. People will 
not switch to Macs (or continue to use them) if they know that they 
will have problems communicating with Windows users. Microsoft has 
made Apple give up technology, and stop using software such as 
Netscape's to as a condition to continue making Office. This is even 
though Office on the Mac is profitable for Microsoft. If Apple does 
not have Office, Apple will eventually die as a company. I will then 
be forced to use a platform I really do not like. Office started on 
a Mac, please keep it there.
    Microsoft should be forced to make Office for the Mac, as it is 
a sword over Apple's head. Furthermore, Microsoft should be forced 
to make feature for feature versions of software such as Internet 
Explorer for the Mac. This is important because Microsoft 
effectively killed Netscape (a company that did make matching 
version of its software for multiple platforms), and is making 
browers for the Mac that many websites will not recognize. In other 
words Microsoft is not giving Mac users the same features that 
Windows users have. Some of these features are necessary to use some 
sites. Netscape never did this. If people cannot rely on the Mac 
platform to access the internet, people will abandon it even though 
they do not want to. If Apple did not have to worry about these 
threats it could concentrate on technology which would compete with 
Microsoft's without the fear of being forced out of business.
    Keep in mind that Microsoft is making money off Mac products. I 
also think that any settlement should force Microsoft to unbundle 
competing software that other companies made popular and at one 
point were making a profit from. Two examples of these types of 
products would be Explorer (as Netscape made the browser popular), 
and Windows Media player (as Real Networks and Apple's Quicktime 
were the popular choices). It should be made clear that in the 
future such products should be unbundled, and Microsoft should 
charge people for the software if other companies invented the 
original software that Microsoft was competing with and these 
companies had to charge for it. Microsoft should also be forced to 
support Java, as doing so would enable programs to write programs 
that could be used on multiple platforms (Linuix, the Mac, Windows, 
Unix, etc.). Finally Microsoft should be supervised by a panel of 
people or a single person who had the direct power to enforce any 
settlement without having to jump through hoops to force compliance. 
Basically I agree with many of the suggestions that the dissenting 
states have provided, even though in some areas I think they need to 
even go a little further.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Paluchniak



MTC-00020078

From: Michael Hurd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the ongoing request for a delay on the beginning 
of the settlement hearing on the Microsoft case is ungrounded as the 
essential points of the settlement with the other petitions have 
long been addressed (such as the bootloader options on OEM installs 
for the OS).
    Increased costs of litigation for all sides is factored in as 
well.
    Regards,
    Michael Hurd  0001 CST -0600 
Jan. 24



MTC-00020079

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I don't agree with the settlement.
    Microsoft have ruined the software industry using their monopoly 
power. They now get away with overcharging for their mediocre 
software using their monopoly power.
    They keep changing their proprietry document formats to prevent 
any sort of open compatibility or standards.



[[Page 26829]]


    They maintain their vice like grip on new PCs being sold, using 
their unfair contracts with hardware vendors and their monopoly 
power, to ensure that their products are the only ones to be pre-
loaded, preventing any sort of competition.
    They should be required to open their document formats to 
release their grip on the wordprocessing and spreadsheet markets, 
and they should be required to release hardware vendors and allow 
them to optionally pre-load their, or their customer's, choice of 
operating sytem and application software. Microsoft are an 
overpricing predatory monopoly and they are holding back the entire 
software industry.
    Regards,
    Craig



MTC-00020080

From: Joe Theriault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever it may concern,
    As a consumer and student in the computer technology sector I 
have an interest in the doings of and in the case against Microsoft. 
Being such, I feel it is my duty to voice my opinion of disapproval 
for the proposed final judgment. My observation of Microsoft leads 
me to believe that any weak judgment against them will not have any 
punitive effect and it may temper a perception within the company 
that they are able to break the law without consequence. If that 
were to happen, the technology consumer and employment markets may 
become irreparably damaged by their abuses.
    Thank you,
    Joseph Theriault



MTC-00020081

From: Jeff Mitchell (MCS)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MICROSOFT WILL PREVAIL!!! I love this company :-)
    Jeff Mitchell
    Microsoft Consulting Services
    35/4606 ; ext. 50571
    Cell 425-503-8295



MTC-00020082

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:04am
Subject: (no subject)
    I want to ask that a fair marketplace be established for all 
software developers and manufacturers and that Microsoft comply.
    Thank-you,
    Mariah K. Ross
    81420 N. Davison Rd
    Creswell, OR 97426
    541-915-0171
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00020083

From: James H. Bombardier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I have worked in the technology arena for over thirty years. I 
believe that Microsoft has abused its monopoly position much worse 
than IBM or AT&T ever did. I think that it is a travesty that 
they are not being severely punished for their excesses. They need 
to be forced to open their APIs at a minimum. It would return 
competition to the market if they were broken up into OS and 
Software pieces. If they are not separated and/or forced to open the 
APIs between the OS and all associated software they will continue 
to inhibit the evolution of good technology.
    Please do the right thing. We don't need to increase the jaded 
national and international opinion of our ``justice'' 
system.
    Regards,
    Jim Bombardier



MTC-00020084

From: Andrew Ittner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I strongly object to the Proposed Final Judgment in United 
States v. Microsoft.
    It does not adequately punish Microsoft for its illegal 
monopoly, nor does it effectively prevent the corporation from 
continuing to engage in predatory and monopolistic activity. This 
Proposed Final Judgment will not end Microsoft's unlawful conduct, 
is not in the public's interest, and should be rejected.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Ittner
    11130 SE 208th St #E204
    Kent, WA 98031



MTC-00020086

From: Jim Tollefson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 
601 D Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. In specific, Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft 
to retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers 
containing a competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating 
system.
    Why should Microsoft care what operating system ships on a PC, 
as long as they get their license fees on the copies that do ship. 
They are just trying to maintain their cash flow at the expense of 
consumers. Why should I have to pay for a copy of software (Windows) 
that I will never use. If OEMs were free of the threat of 
retaliation from Microsoft, I could purchase only the hardware and 
software that I need/want on my PC. Thus saving me money and 
frustration over the long term. By allowing this practice, the 
Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) is encouraging Microsoft to extend 
its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to leverage 
it into new areas.
    I feel this should be prohibited by the PFJ.
    Thanks for your time,
    Jim Tollefson
    Senior Systems Engineer
    Seattle, WA
    -
    Jim Tollefson [email protected]



MTC-00020087

From: Karl Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As someone who has been involved with PC from the first one I 
built-it is obvious that the Microsoft monopoly needs remedial 
action. Unless Microsoft is split into three parts-OS, 
application, and browser, there will be no consequence at all for 
the immoral and illegal activities. This monopoly has already set 
back computer development by 10 years. To understand, one only needs 
to look at the emerging Linux desktop to see the innovation that has 
been totally killed in the commercial world by this monopoly.
    Karl Schmidt EMail [email protected]
    Transtronics, Inc. WEB http://xtronics.com
    3209 West 9th Street Ph(785) 841-3089
    Lawrence, KS 66049 FAX(785) 841-0434
    Definition of Windows XP:
    SPAM, thinly disguised as an operating system



MTC-00020088

From: Ted Estes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
    I think the settlement, as currently designed, will not slow 
down Microsoft from continuing to abuse its monopoly. Furthermore, 
it does little to rectify the current ecology in the marketplace 
that is out of balance do to their abuse of their monopoly. There 
appears to be no punishment for their crime, just some chaperones to 
make sure they follow the letter of the settlement. There are also 
the concessions they have to make for VAR's and such, but that just 
brings them level with the law. All the way through this case, 
Microsoft has refused to accept any wrong doing, they have shown No 
remorse-No shame. How can you expect them to follow any law 
without respect for that law. There has to be punishment; which, 
unfortunately, is woefully lacking in this settlement. They cannot 
be allowed to behave like the predator that they are, while they are 
a monopoly. They need to be de-clawed, de-fanged and have their 
wings clipped until they are no longer considered to be a monopoly. 
At which point, they should be free to fend for themselves in the 
marketplace with whatever fierceness they want. To be clear, I do 
not believe they should be punished for being a monopoly. I believe 
they should be punished for abusing that monopoly; as was shown in 
the Court's ``Findings of Fact''. They cannot be trusted 
with monopoly status.
    Respectfully,
    Ted Estes



MTC-00020089

From: DJ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen and ladies, may I say, that as I've found Microsoft 
business practices so outrageous and intolerable that there is no 
longer the hint of trust required for me to continue using their 
products (even though I 


[[Page 26830]]


have a difficult time switching to their 
competitors due to lack of experience with the competition's 
product), it is a moot point for me what you do to Microsoft. I have 
used their products since approximately the late 1980s, at work and 
at home, starting with the first version of DOS, and have recently 
tried Windows xp. Do you realize they have purposely disabled XP 
(home edition, the one they make exclusively available on new PCs) 
so it won't connect to a Windows 2000 network? This operating system 
is slow and hogs resources-with little if any user advantage 
and mostly to enhance Microsoft's market position while requiring 
consumers to invest in more RAM and hard drive space and faster CPU, 
simply to make it easier to track every hardware change, force the 
user to waste time jumping through registration and re-registration 
hoops. It appears to provide no benefit to the purchaser, which 
unlucky folks Microsoft means to force into unwanted and unneeded 
extra payments and upgrades(?) with its supposed new business 
practices which are the most abusive yet. If you do not provide 
relief for the abused consumer, it is a real shame and a missed 
opportunity to show what is meant by abolishing abusive business 
practices. As for me, it's moot, I'm going to open source operating 
systems, where there is still consideration for functional software 
and regard for the user of same.
    Regards,
    Denise Jensen



MTC-00020090

From: George Helmke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    George HElmke
    US citizen living abroad



MTC-00020091

From: Dan Schmeidler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:09am
Subject: Microsoft
    I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments that have 
been on my mind for quite some time. Let me first start off by 
saying that I have been a Macintosh user since their inception and I 
made that choice simply because after much research and 
investigation I concluded that (dos) was simply to complicated and 
confusing. So I invested what I considered to be a substantial sum 
of money in Macintosh hardware and software to run my small 
business. If that were the end of the story I probably wouldn't 
complain because that system ran our business flawlessly without a 
hitch and was very user friendly. However as technology progressed 
so did my interest in using the computer for other purposes other 
than running the business. Unfortunately I started to see software 
titles for Macintosh disappear, and software titles for Windows 
increase substantially. As time went on Microsoft's monopoly was 
apparent to me long before the complaint was filed by the DOJ. 
Software developers who originally developed software for the 
Macintosh began to withdraw their support for the older versions of 
software that I had and they discontinued any new future versions. 
But the last straw for me was while I was at the local CompUSA 
store. I asked the salesman who worked there why most of the 
software developers had stopped developing for the Mac. This 
particular gentleman happened to work part time at this computer 
store but his full time job was teaching computer classes on both 
Mac and Windows machines at the local high school. Although he 
admitted that he preferred the Mac OS over Windows, he simply said 
that a lot of the software developers have a no lose situation with 
Microsoft because they pay them to write exclusively for Windows. In 
other words he said, what would you do if I were to guarantee you a 
profit regardless of whether your software sells or not? I have 
personally talked to some of these software companies tech support 
personel who pretty much confirmed what I had been told and quite 
frankly they were unapologetic as they dismissed my argument of 
fundamental fairness. My constant thought has always been that this 
can't be legal. I'm just one person who has endured the frustration 
of the Microsoft strangle hold on the entire tech industry. I cannot 
say that I suffered the damage that some of these other companies 
have but I can say that I spent almost 2 decades at considerable 
expense and with constant frustration just to be able to exercise my 
freedom to use the OS platform that I choose.
    Contrary to Microsoft's claims that innovation will be stifled 
if strong remedies are imposed, they are not and have not been an 
innovative force in the industry and in fact for the most part have 
pirated the innovations of others and used their monopoly power to 
crush those who dare challenge them.
    I believe the complaint filed by the DOJ against Microsoft was 
necessary and legitimate. I believe the courts have ruled correctly 
when they concluded that they engaged in illegal anticompetitive 
practices. I also believe that the penalty should be strict and 
substantial not only to punish Microsoft for the damage inflicted 
upon would be competitors, but to send a strong and clear message 
that Microsoft will not be allowed to dictate their will on the 
consumer, the technology industry, or the justice system from this 
time forth. I hope that the court will administer justice by placing 
maximum emphasis on doing what's right and fair to the minority 
consumer and companies whom the antitrust laws were supposedly 
designed to protect, rather than on Microsoft stockholders or others 
who may have a vested interest in Microsoft's success. From what I 
have read in some of the transcripts it is clear to me that 
Microsoft has proven to be untrustworthy and has seemingly attempted 
to use its monopoly power to impose its will on the courts by 
defying and ignoring the orders of the court. In my view a strong 
penalty imposed against Microsoft will ensure that if software 
developers desire to develop for multiple platforms they will have 
an equal financial incentive. It will also ensure that the different 
software titles for multiple platforms will be for the most part 
technologically equal and compatable, competitively priced, and 
released within a similar time frame.
    Innovation and affordable pricing come from competition not 
monopolies. It is in the best interest of the consumer, the tech 
industry, and of the justice system.
    Thank You,
    Dan Schmeidler
    1081 E 8175 S
    Sandy Utah
    801-561-5846



MTC-00020092

From: Scott Balfour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement. It does nothing to 
redress the harm done by a convicted monopolist. They (Microsoft) 
were convicted on eight seperate counts and the 
``settlement'' arrived at was ``go and sin no 
more''. This rewards illegal behavior. Under the law a 
corporation is a person, if a person was convicted of eight separate 
violations they would be facing a much greater penalty than the 
proposed settlement. When you add in the egregious behavior at the 
trial this settlement shows that if you are big enough the law does 
not apply.
    R. Scott Balfour
    Austin, Texas



MTC-00020093

From: erwien saputra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir/madam,
    I would like to express my concern about MS/DOJ settlement.
    I do not hate Microsoft, but I want to see good product will be 
able to go into the market and compete with Microsoft product. If 
the Microsoft should fail it should be because some other people 
created better product and Microsoft cannot do anything with its 
influence to crush it.
    Microsoft said that their bundled app (browser, CD burner, 
instant messenger) are free, while actually the cost has been paid 
with the price of OS itself, regardless the customer wants it or 
not.
    Sincerely,
    Erwin.



MTC-00020095

From: Gregg Berkholtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    As a full-time Senior Systems Administrator for a medium sized 
private company based in the Portland Oregon area, and a part-time 
small business owner, it is a painfully clear and daily reminder the 
extent 


[[Page 26831]]



to which Microsoft has abused the public trust with its 
monopoly power. Please, reject this proposal in favor of a much 
stronger remedy. Today's information based society is particularly 
hard hit by Microsoft's crimes. The most cursory review of my day 
finds several obvious examples of the price that we all must pay for 
Microsoft's monopolistic actions. For example;
    *Websites often display properly only under Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer. My opinion is that this is mostly due to the market 
dominance that Internet Explorer gained after Microsoft began to 
force the installation of Internet Explorer on all new computers, 
while simultaneously prohibiting the installation of other web 
browsers.
    *My email accounts are regularly bombarded with unwanted and 
large emails containing the latest Microsoft Outlook virus. 
Microsoft has gone far in requiring the Outlook email client on new 
computers: In the Windows 95/98 world, Outlook can be uninstalled by 
someone who is proficient in computers. In the Windows 2000 world, 
Microsoft has a mandatory program/process that runs in the 
background that monitors files pertaining to Outlook, and forces 
it's installation (or re-installation)l; If you attempt to uninstall 
Outlook, Windows 2000 will either reinstall Outlook automatically, 
or you will be repeatedly prompted to reinstall it.
    My opinion is that Outlook is more prolific because of the 
apparent requirement that it must be installed on all computers 
(irregardless of whether or not its'' components are being 
used), and that the lack of opportunity for competition in the 
marketplace has caused this generally forced acceptance.
    *When I recommend to my friends, family, co-workers and 
customers that they buy a prebuilt computer from a major hardware 
vendor I must explain that it can only be bought bundled with 
Microsoft Windows. These problems exist, not because of a lack of 
consumer demand for a solution, or lack of a willingness to pay, but 
because Microsoft does not allow it. In-fact, in the computer 
industry, the requirement of the Microsoft OS on a new computer is 
frequently referred to as the Microsoft Tax.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. That the fact that even today they still continue to 
perform similar acts of deception. Most important, the proposed 
settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's previous actions. 
There are no provisions that correct or redress their previous 
abuses. They only attempt to prohibit the future repetition of those 
abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of 
law. If a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, 
benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. The proposed settlement does not come 
close to recouping the illegal gains which Microsoft has made off 
American consumers much less come close to penalizing Microsoft for 
the illegal abuses. While it is doubtful that the true losses can 
ever be recovered from Microsoft in any settlement. The beginnings 
of a fair settlement should include the preeminent opening of all 
Windows and Office API's and file formats as well as large cash 
payments to open source programming efforts which compete with 
Microsoft products. In this way, Microsoft's ill gotten gains can be 
used for the public good.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory James Berkholtz
    PO BOX 16962
    Portland Oregon, 97292
    (503) 255-3650



MTC-00020096

From: Ron Peake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hello
    In my opinion the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft 
Corporation has been convicted of abusing it's monopoly position but 
the U.S Government refuses to punish the Corporation.
    Best Regards,
    Ron Peake
    ([email protected])



MTC-00020097

From: Carl Browning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A real proverbial ``slap on the wrist''. It is very 
sad to see our once proud government pander to the interests of 
mega-corporations, especially on as blatantly abusive as Microsoft. 
Don't fool yourself into believing that you have done anything to 
protect the interests of the people. I make my living off of 
Microsoft products exclusively, and I hate the way Microsoft 
conducts business. In the last few years, I have begun to hate their 
products. Microsoft's paranoia about maintaining it's monopoly has 
not made their products any better (especially their server 
products). The more they integrate ``features'' into their 
software, the more difficult it is to configure and maintain.
    It is probably too much to hope that the DoJ will take a second 
look at the ``settlement'' and realize just how weak it 
is. I suppose I can only hope that the DoJ staff will hang their 
heads in shame for their unwillingness or inability (take your pick) 
to protect the people of the United States.



MTC-00020098

From: mike stephen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My god. If you people in the courts let Microsoft get away with 
the monopolization of the entire personal computer market, and fail 
to show Microsoft that they cannot do illegal activities without 
paying a cost, then the future of the Personal Computer is doomed to 
continue running poorly written and poorly designed software for 
years to come.
    Lest you be remembered as the people who could have done 
something about this issue, and failed to do so.
    Please please do something to stop Microsoft from further 
screwing of the market.
    Mark Stephen



MTC-00020100

From: DLG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
    It's my distinct opinion that Microsoft has clearly behaved in a 
manner most anticompetitive. They've stifled innovation, and 
produced products that, with proper competition, would never have 
survived.
    -DL Gibson



MTC-00020101

From: Andrew Hagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:15am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it's a bad idea. It lets Microsoft off too easy.
    I am a US citizen.
    Andrew Hagen
    [email protected]



MTC-00020102

From: Urb's Mail 1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appalled at the current status of this antitrust issue. I 
pay taxes to a government that I thought would look out for the 
little guy and ensure that all innovators have an even playing 
field. This is apparently not the case. Microsoft has systematically 
destroyed any competitor that would challenge it's global dominance 
in the software industry. Their next goal once Unix is dead and 
Linux has been corrupted by their persistent methods of debunking 
it's benefits, will be to charge everyone rent for a piece of S/W 
that will never live up the the grandiose claims that are bundled 
with it. Imagine having to pay a monthly fee to access your files 
and your personal items. If you allow MS to force third party 
innovators to disclose their technology in order to certify it as MS 
compatible; then you might just as well tell everyone writing any 
code that they will have to allow MS to ``examine'' hence 
``steal'' any code they develop. This company is notorious 
for stealing others good ideas. They haven't developed anything on 
their own merits. Your job as prosecutors is to see that MS stops 
their monopolistic business practices and punish them for past 
misdeeds. Do you actually think all the plaintiff testimony was 
created by a group of sour grape losers that just could not compete? 
This is bullshit! They were setup to loose by heavy handed and 
illegal business practices. I will get to the point! You have wasted 
my money and every other tax payers. Your 


[[Page 26832]]


restrictions have no teeth and the piece of paper it is written on 
is no better than toilette paper. MS will continue stifling innovation 
and the only one who will pay in the future will be all of us. This 
great country was founded on innovation and invention. If there are 
no more innovators to challenge the status quo and hold them to high standards, then we will be left with a fat overgrown monopolist who 
can not comprehend the term. Make the people of this great country 
believe that you have a backbone. A strict judgment will only serve 
to make MS a better company by forcing them to fairly compete. If you 
fail to produce a fair judgment then you might as well be in Bill 
Gates'' pocket for life.



MTC-00020103

From: Paul Snow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea for consumers because it 
does not address any of the basic issues with Microsoft's corporate 
behavior which led to the lawsuit in the first place. What the 
settlement does do is to reinforce in the minds of the common 
citizen and corporate leadership, the idea that corporations (if 
they are big enough) are above the law, do not have responsibility 
to society, and any means necessary justifies the ends of making 
money.
    Paul Snow
    [email protected]



MTC-00020104

From: M Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am completely, entirely AGAINST the proposed settlement. 
Certainly consumers, developers, AND IT professionals are ALL hurt 
by the proposed settlement. In addition, the Open Source movement is 
dealt a particularly harsh blow: most of the settlement language 
only applies to ``businesses''-and for others (not-
for-profits, etc), things will be worse than they were before!
    Also... I hate to say it, but ``the children'' will be 
hurt, as well: the whole thing about Microsoft donating -er, 
pushing- their products (and/or training) onto schools is 
ludicrous and offensive. I can't believe that's part of the 
``settlement'' (even considering the so-called 
``revised'' settlement changes.) I've worked in both the 
for-profit and the non-profit software industry (schools, 
unfortunately, are very similar to the non-profit industry) for the 
past decade, and have seen the damage of Microsoft's monopolistic 
influence on productivity, technology, and in general on people's 
lives.
    I'm rooting for the states who are fighting the 
settltment-they are the only ones who seem to have any idea 
about what this proposed settlement means.
    Reject the proposed settement.
    -Michael S. Nielsen {email: 
[email protected]
    phone: 913-906-7137



MTC-00020105

From: DCALLE24@HOTMAIL. COM@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has 
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; 
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free 
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of 
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most 
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    DIEGO CALLE
    88-11 CORONA AVE. ELMHURST
    NEW YORK, NY 11373-3958



MTC-00020106

From: RM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
22 January, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    I would like to go on the record as being against the Proposed 
Final Judgement in United States vs Microsoft. As a software 
professional and avid computer user I am dismayed that the Proposed 
Final Judgement does not go far enough in curbing the monopolistic 
behaviour of Microsoft. Microsoft was shown every indication in the 
past of not abiding with previous court-sanctioned limitations.
    The only solution to allow access to the Operating System, as 
defined in the Proposed Final Judgement, to other Microsoft 
applications the same as non-Microsoft applications. If this means 
that Microsoft should be broken up then so be it.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Riad Mohammed
    San Mateo, CA



MTC-00020107

From: Jim Gallagher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The biggest problem with the proposed settlement is that it 
fails to prohibit anticompetitive practices towards OEMs.
    Jim Gallagher
    10433 Camden Drive
    Cypress, CA 90630



MTC-00020108

From: Aquinas Hobor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to register my stand in the Microsoft Settlement as 
a citizen of the United States of America. I am a currently a third-
year at the University of Chicago, studying mathematics and computer 
science.
    I have used many Microsoft products for over ten years; 
currently I use both Windows XP and Office XP, as well as Microsoft 
Money. Because I use these products, Microsoft has taken thousands 
of dollars from me, and it has been worth every penny. In fact, I 
would have been willing to pay double the price (and I do not have a 
lot of money.) Simply put, their products have greatly simplified my 
life, and I am very thankful. Their products are the best, both in 
terms of value and features. Windows (of various flavors) has always 
been easier to use than anything else out there, from MacOS to Linux 
to Solaris to HP-UX. I have used WordPerfect, Lotus Notes, and even 
the horrible Star Office. Microsoft Office is even more obviously 
superior among office products than Windows is among operating 
systems.
    Every time I buy a product, I vote with my hard-earned dollars 
on a company. Like most other consumers, my overwhelming favorite is 
Microsoft. Our society is founded on the idea that each individual 
is capable of voting for a candidate to represent his political 
ideas. However, the Proposed Settlement characterizes US citizens as 
a helpless victims, unable to choose which products are best. How 
can I be considered worthy of electing people who can decide to fire 
nuclear weapons towards Afghanistan, and yet not be considered 
capable of deciding that Netscape is inferior to Internet Explorer? 
By what right does the Settlement propose to shackle me? 
Incidentally, I've noticed that Apple's Mac OS X ships with IE. Why 
is Microsoft's competitor allowed to use Microsoft's technology more 
freely than Microsoft is?
    I've followed this case from the beginning, and from the very 
outset, it was neither consumers nor Microsoft's partners who 
brought suit: it was Microsoft's failing and failed competitors. To 
let failed businesses set the rules for successful ones in any 
market is wrong, but to let them set the rules in a sector that 
changes as fast as technology does is disastrous. For years IBM 
dealt with antitrust regulators who did incalculable damage to IBM, 
its shareholders, and the general public. Ms. Heese, don't make 
Microsoft, its shareholders, and customers like me suffer the same 
unjust fate.
    Moreover, a suit of this kind will only encourage companies of 
all kinds to court government favors, both to protect what they have 
earned (in the case of the most honest) and to take what they want 
from those less well-connected than they are (in the case of the 
shadier). This is a dangerous game, and only the most dishonest and 
politically wired 


[[Page 26833]]


companies can possibly win it. The Department of 
Justice should not be helping such people in any way.
    Finally, I wish to inform the court that I am outraged that it 
is attacking Microsoft's property rights, not defending them. The 
proposed settlement is unjust: Microsoft's products have helped 
millions of people around the world, and the only proper course of 
action is to say, ``Thank you'' and let it go. Ms. Hesse, 
please let justice be served. Give Microsoft the thank you they have 
earned and let them continue doing what they do best.
    Yours,
    Aquinas Hobor



MTC-00020109

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has 
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; 
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free 
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of 
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most 
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this 
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Crass
    3831 Marshall Place
    Gary, IN 46408-1926



MTC-00020110

From: Stephen Magill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am of the opinion that the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case fails to address several methods that 
Microsoft is using to lock out competition in the computer software 
industry. In particular, Microsoft's refusal to disclose file 
formats for Microsoft Office documents presents a significant 
barrier-to-entry in the business software sector. The secrecy of 
these file formats ensures that Microsoft's dominance in this area 
will be maintained, as it prevents competing products from working 
with the significant volume of documents created using Microsoft 
Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Furthermore, disclosure of these 
formats does not harm Microsoft in any way. An examination of 
current open formats such as HTML, PDF, and MPEG verifies this. The 
critical piece of intellectual property is the authoring software, 
not the document format itself. All that releasing the details of 
file formats enables is additional competition and compatibility. 
Thus, any final judgment should include the requirement that 
Microsoft make publicly available the format for files produced with 
their Office suite of products.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Magill
    Student
    University of Tulsa



MTC-00020111

From: Norman Siu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I wish to voice my complaint in regards to the pending 
settlement of this current lawsuit against Microsoft. In short, I 
believe that you are not punshing Microsoft at all. In fact, you are 
punishing all computer users in general. By allowing Microsoft into 
an area that it has no domination and little influence in, you are 
thereby opening the door of opportunity for Microsoft to monopolize 
another area of public interest.
    Also, you are, in simple terms, telling people that Microsoft 
has the right to monopolize any area it wishes with little regard to 
everyone else and anything else such as innovation and creativity.
    But looking at it another way, if you legitamize this 
settlement, you will also, potentially destroy that which drives 
Microsoft to compete. By letting Microsoft monopolize and reduce 
competition, there would be little for them to compare or compete 
against. Thereby causing Microsoft to no longer compete properly.
    So, on one hand, you could destroy competition, innovation, and 
creativity by allowing this settlement. On the other hand, you could 
weaken Microsoft by having them destroy that which they compete 
against. But in the end, the settlement would not benefit anyone, 
but mostly it will hurt everyone.
    Do not allow this settlement to go through. It would be in the 
best interest of everyone.
    Thank you.
    N.K.Siu



MTC-00020113

From: The Art of Pottery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir.
    I believe that Microsoft is abusing its position of dominance in 
several ways. It dictates what a person can do with it's Operating 
system once they have paid for it.
    As a Family man, I am being denied the right to use the 
operating system as I please on my own personnel computers.
    I am also being denied the right to reload my computers after 
the system crashes (usually due to a flaw in the operating system ) 
without pleading with Microsoft for permission and a new key-number.
    Also I am denied the right to make a copy of the operating 
system to use when reloading for the umpteenth time,
    Thus keeping the original in good condition.
    This dictatorial attitude would not exist where it not for 
Microsoft's dominant market position or the existence of cartels 
similar to the Petro-chemical and Music industry's.
    I believe I should own the right to use the product as I see fit 
within a legal framework that forbids my profiting by resale or 
gifting copies to third parties.
    I understand the need for Microsoft to guard it's intellectual 
property but it is going beyond what is reasonable in a free 
democratic society and should be made to curb it's dictatorial ways.
    David Doney.



MTC-00020114

From: Phillip Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ settlement is NOT in the U.S. public's best interests, 
as dictated by the 500,000 poll we have taken, representative of an 
est. 87% of the concerned U.S. public-an unequivocal majority 
of the concerned U.S. public input.
    There is a series of legal networks that will file suit against 
the DOJ if the current appeasement settlement goes through. This 
will cost the U.S. government an additional estimated $1.6 billion 
dollars, which is also not in the public's best interests.
    Please take this cautionary note seriously. You are making a 
major mistake with the current ``settlement''.
    P. Anderson, Ph.D.
    Director
    PC Research InterAlia Legal Network



MTC-00020115

From: Tom Mollerus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Tom Mollerus



MTC-00020116

From: Scott Kazimour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I'd like to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. I believe it does far too little to redress the past 
actions of Microsoft, and doesn't do enough to allow future 
competition. Microsoft has achieved its position of market dominance 
not through superior products, but rather through predatory business 
practices. Microsoft has stifled innovation in the computer 
industry, and consumers have suffered harm as a result. I've been in 
meetings with venture capitalists where new business ideas are 
rejected out of hand, simply because of the hint of a rumor that 
Microsoft might someday be interested in pursuing something similar, 
and creating a successful business would therefore be impossible.
    I feel that more drastic action is required in order to restore 
an environment in which companies succeed through the traditional 
means of producing higher quality products at a lower price.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Kazimour
    Software Engineer
    Seattle, WA


[[Page 26834]]





MTC-00020117

From: Danny Hong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom this Concerns:
    I am a highly concerned Computer Science graduate who has been 
following the actions of Microsoft for many years. I have found 
nothing but greed, deceit, thievery, and blatant usage of their 
monopoly to ruin any and ALL innovation in the software industry. 
Unlike their utter lie about freedom to innovation, Microsoft's 
chief goal is to keep and extend their monopoly by ANY means 
possible. That includes buying out good companies, killing off other 
good companies(Ex. Netscape, Lotus, Dos-Clones, Linux, etc), or 
doing deals that give Microsoft their own upper hand. If you allow 
them to continue their actions, one day the computer industry will 
come to a standstill and the US economy WILL suffer. It's already 
very disgusting that a company can get away with 100% profit margins 
without running into many legal problems. It's even more disgusting 
that Microsoft has named our last best hope for survival in the form 
of open source as it's target of demise. Linux is one of the few 
last remaining hopes to let people be free to create software 
without a monopoly controlling what we can do. I'm also highly 
disturbed by Microsoft's latest action to block off games from being 
made on an open platform. They have acquired intellectual property 
of SGI that could be used to prevent OpenGL from being used or 
supported. It seems to be another attempt to force every game 
developer in the world to use ONLY microsoft products. I remember 
capitalism being about competition, the word competition is the 
opposite of anything happening in the influence of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Hong



MTC-00020118

From: Wayne Horner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement.
    Microsoft should be tried under the rico statutes-they act 
like the mafia.
    Their proposal to give away computers to scholls is 
ludicrous-it would be a marketting enhancement not a 
punishment.
    Microsoft is stifling growth in the computer industry. They are 
too big-they have enough power to kill any competitor. There 
should be a stripped down featureless version of the OS. It should 
be like buying a car. If I want to NOT buy your overpriced crappy 
stereo then I should be able to buy a stripped down car and put the 
money toward a stereo that I prefer. I should not be forced to 
accept all of microsofts ``features''.



MTC-00020119

From: Alan De Smet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement 
in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp, as allowed by the 
Tunney Act. The Proposed Final Judgment will not change Microsoft's 
use of monopoly power to illegally engage in anti-competitive 
behavior.
    I am a software engineer. I have professionally developed 
software for four years. As a result of Microsoft's overwhelming 
market force, I have primarily developed applications for Microsoft 
operating systems and middleware.
    The Proposed Final Judgment has several significant flaws. Most 
importantly, section III.J allows Microsoft to hide documentation on 
APIs and Communications Protocols if the documentation would 
compromise the security of one of more systems. This exception is 
unnecessary. A well designed and implemented system is in no way 
compromised by the release of documentation on it. If a system's 
security could be compromised by the release of documentation on the 
system, the system is insecure. Microsoft is capable of developing 
secure systems, however historical evidence indicates that Microsoft 
has chosen not to do so. By providing this exception, Microsoft is 
free to conceal essential documentation from OEMs and ISVs by using 
insecure systems whose security would be weakened by the release of 
the documentation. Relatedly, the definitions which define which 
APIs and Communications Protocols are covered fail to cover the most 
essential APIs and Communication protocols which are part of the 
Barrier to Entry competitors face. To be truly effective, all APIs, 
Communications Protocols, and File Formats used by Microsoft Office 
products (including Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, and Outlook) 
must be made available to all ISVs. Without this information, ISVs 
will be unable to compete in the areas of operating systems or 
office productivity applications. Because of Microsoft's monopoly 
position, competing ISVs must provide extremely high levels of 
compatibility with Microsoft's Windows operating systems and 
Microsoft's Office application. If Microsoft is allowed to keep 
these interfaces secret for any reason, Microsoft will continue to 
manipulate them to produce incompatibilities with competing 
software.
    The Proposed Final Judgment significantly fails to limit 
Microsoft's use of monopoly power to stifle competition. Without 
significant changes, Microsoft will continue to use its monopoly 
position to crush competition and illegally maintain its monopoly 
position.
    Sincerely,
    Alan De Smet
    8531 Greenway Blvd #206
    Middleton, WI 53562
    [email protected]



MTC-00020120

From: Digital ChoreoGraphics
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is not in the public's or the computer 
industry's best interests.
    -Don Black
    PO Box 8268
    Newport Beach, CA 92658
    1-949-548-1969
    (c) Copyright 2001-Digital ChoreoGraphics
    World Class Digital Imaging Software
    Embedded Realtime System Software
    Design and Development
    1-949-548-1969
    http://www.dcgfx.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00020121

From: Matthew Bass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to express a deep seated concern over the pending 
Microsoft Settlement.
    While I would be delighted to elaborate on several 
points-I think the best summary I've found so far can be 
located here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html I would 
highly encourage everyone involved with the case to review said 
documentation-for it does an excellent job outlining the 
problems associated with the pending settlement.
    Microsoft has done an excellent job positioning itself as the 
``core'' of the ``Information Technology'' 
universe. For that they certainly deserve credit. However, their 
business practices can be likened to those of Rockefeller's Standard 
Oil empire.
    Microsoft does not ``compete'' with others. They 
either incorporate the competition into their empire-or they 
crush it (e.g. Netscape, DR-DOS, etc). There is no competition.
    Beyond the lack of competition-Microsoft goes out of their 
way to prevent their applications (word/excel/etc) from running on 
NON Microsoft Operating Systems-even if the OS is 
``compatible''-and the application would work. The 
EULA (end user licensing agreement) specifically prohibits an end-
user from running a Microsoft application (like Word) on a NON 
windows based PC. Please see the following link for more detail: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#isv.atl
    Furthermore, Microsoft actually goes out of it's way to 
incorporate INTENTIONAL incompatibilities in it's products to thwart 
competition. Many years back there was a product called DR-
DOS-which by all accounts was as good (if not better) than the 
Microsoft product (MS-DOS). When Microsoft moved into the realm of 
``Windows''-they incorporated INTENTIONAL 
incompatibilities into their product-so Windows would ONLY run 
on MS-DOS. Needless to say DR-DOS was short lived thereafter. For 
more information click the link below: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#caldera
    Need I even mention Netscape?
    It is imperative that something be done about the present 
situation- certainly more than is proposed in the pending 
settlement. Information Technology is becoming an increasingly 
important part of everyday life. It would be a grevious mistake to 
allow a single entity to wield such broad control.
    I thank you for your time and patience-it is sincerely 
appreciated.
    Matthew Bass



[[Page 26835]]


    Gilroy, CA 95020



MTC-00020122

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method for states 
to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only 
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the 
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Laura Daly
    8070 West Russell Road
    Unit 1067
    Las Vegas, NV 89113



MTC-00020123

From: Tanya Red
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:24am
Subject: Harshness for the Microsoft Monopoly
    As someone who uses computers casually, but frequently.. As 
someone who is not a part of the business world, but is surrounded 
by, and fervently watches the events around her, with this case, and 
is thusly intimately affected by it.. I must state my utter 
disappointment in the ability of Microsoft to squeeze by our justice 
system with its money and lobbying.
    This is a company which fixes polls (See ZDNet), and lies 
whenever it can to further its own means. This is a company with 
such a hold on the desktop market that it can dictate what tools the 
masses use to do every computer related function of the average 
business world, from what programs they use to make spreadsheets, 
view the Internet, and even what games they play, increasingly so.
    What's good for Microsoft is not what's good for America, 
contrary to the similar view regarding GM in the not so distant 
past.
    I implore those who read this one E-Mail to hear my voice, and 
ensure that Microsoft not only plays by the rules, period, but that 
the rules are truly deserving for a company which so blatently 
violated the computer industry, and the trust of millions, without 
most people -even knowing it-. A company so disgustingly 
adept at snow jobbing the world, whether its through fixed polls or 
outright lying denials, that its fooling us into selling control of 
more and more of our own lives to it.
    A corporation should never hold this much sway over the lives of 
our fair nation, period. That should be in the relm of our 
government, our justice department, and I hope that its stronger 
than this!
    Please, do your best to make Microsoft fair, before the 
Europeans prove we can be bought out corruption, money, and lies. We 
all win when we have a choice. We all win when have freedom beyond 
the will of one vicious corporation. Please, hear my words, and take 
them into account, as a loyal citizen of our nation, that I have 
been injured by Microsoft, and demand that they be accordingly 
treated as the criminals they've been proven to be! 
    Tanya Ruppell, New Jersey Resident.



MTC-00020124

From: Andrew Carpenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I wish to register my opposition to the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft antitrust trial.
    I do not believe this settlement provides adequate redress for 
Microsoft's past actions, nor does it sufficiently restrict it from 
committing similar acts in future. Some clauses in the proposal may 
even serve to legitimize some its activities which have been found 
to be anticompetitive. Microsoft has already demonstrated its 
willingness to flaunt a settlement agreement related to antitrust 
actions. Any future settlement it enters into will need to be 
absolutely watertight to prevent exploitation of loopholes, and I do 
not believe this agreement meets such standards even for the terms 
it does seek to enforce. Microsoft's happiness with the current 
proposal-and its apparent eagerness for it to be adopted 
- should serve as further indication that it is an 
insufficient solution.
    I urge you not to accept this proposal, and to seek an 
alternative remedy. I can understand the court's preference to reach 
a settlement, but if the parties cannot agree on terms that will 
provide appropriate redress for past actions and restriction for 
future actions, then the court must impose more stringent remedies 
itself.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Carpenter



MTC-00020125

From: Spam Hater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi
    My opinion on the Microsoft Settlement:
    This is a small person in a big world speaking out against a 
wrong that will(or could) one day bring the world as a whole to its 
knees(read FBI security report). In that world you and your country 
will be controlled, as are those who are in control of you. 
Microsoft is gaining power everyday, one day, NO ONE will be able to 
do what NEEDS to be done. Before it's to late, stop them! Don't 
settle until you and your government are in control. If you don't do 
it now, later may be to late. If you think I'm wrong, try surfing 
the internet with the ``Options'' that are out there. 
``Opera'' is a great browser available for 
``all'' systems to use, but ``many'' sites don't 
load... ``Microsoft Enterprise'' server run sites. So you 
get forced back to ``Internet Explorer''. So what, I can 
hear you say, well one day, if you ``piss-off'' 
``Bill'' maybe your internet tax returns will all go 
missing... what are you going to do then? Say bad Bill? Naughty boy! 
Think it can't happen, ask ``Steve Jobs'' he'll tell you 
what ``Bill'' can do for you. ``Make Our Browser 
Default Or You Don't Get Office.'' What could he do? Nothing! 
Now it's default on all Apple computers. As far as I can see, BILL 
GATES paid ``someone'' off BIG TIME to make this all go 
away, man it must be great to be the RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD you 
can BUY your way out of ANYTHING! What did he do buy the election 
(or fix it, it was WINDOWS machines counting those ballots... 
right)? The Democrats lost, so the bosses would get changed, so the 
case would go away. LAND OF THE FREE alright... anything can happen 
for the right price $$$$.
    MICROSOFT SUCKS!!!!!
    Thank you for your time(although I know I've wasted mine) Brad 
Harrison(Apple user)



MTC-00020126

From: Dr. Martin Senftleben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:27am
Subject: disagreement
    Madam, Sir,
    I do not agree to the settlement that is currently going to be 
discussed between the States of the USA and Microsoft. With this 
settlement, Microsoft's market position would be further 
strengthened, alternatives would be removed from the market, and 
eventully we would be depending only on this one company in 
executing all the tastks for which we use computers. It's the 
freedom of choice that is at stake. So please, consider the facts 
carefully and decide for the good of the people whom you represent, 
and not for the good of a company which becomes increasingly 
dangerous.
    Thank you,
    Dr. Martin Senftleben



MTC-00020127

From: maxwell@nodots-daemon@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to express my vehement objection to the proposed 
Microsoft antitrust settlement. Both as a citizen and as a 
professional computer programmer, I respectfully insist that 
Microsoft face a meaningful punishment for its unlawful actions. The 
proposed settlement doesn't even come close.
    In large measure, the settlement merely restates the existing 
law or the earlier settlement agreement-this does not punish 
Microsoft in any way.
    The remaining portions of the settlement contain loopholes big 
enough to drive a monopoly through. For example, Microsoft gets to 
choose to whom they will disclose API and protocol documentation. 
Microsoft has already made it clear that its most serious 
competition, open source software, does not meet its criteria for an 
``authentic and viable'' business (to use language from 
the settlement). In any event, if their past behavior proves 
anything, it's that they will 


[[Page 26836]]


not make such decisions in good faith. 
(Indeed, their bad-faith actions led to the current trial: absurdly, 
Microsoft claimed they were ``integrating'' their Web 
browser but not ``bundling'' it. A distinction without a 
difference if I ever saw one, but it enabled Microsoft to unlawfully 
crush yet another competitor.)
    Adding insult to injury, Microsoft can entirely sidestep those 
already limited and ineffectual disclosure requirements by claiming 
that they must do so for security reasons. This provision is a 
complete absurdity: it may be counterintuitive, but true security is 
achieved by using open standards, which can be inspected for flaws 
by the broader security community. You may be sure that Microsoft 
knows this, so it's worth contemplating why this measure is in the 
agreement at all. There is only one answer: to enable Microsoft to 
emasculate the agreement whenever its provisions are inconvenient.
    The proposed oversight committee cannot usefully address these 
concerns, or the dozens of others like them, for two main reasons. 
First, Microsoft itself will have considerable control over the 
committee, as Microsoft chooses one member directly and one of the 
other two members indirectly. (I hope that if I ever break the law, 
I get to choose my own parole officer.) Second, the committee would 
generally operate in secret, so serious objections on the part of 
the committee's only truly independent member may never reach the 
public. This mandated secrecy, coupled with the committee's 
guaranteed ineffectiveness, must inevitably erode any public 
confidence in the committee's trustworthiness-and, by 
extension, in the justice system itself.
    Finally, I object to the settlement on philosophical grounds. I 
believe that the law should apply to the rich and 
powerful-including rich and powerful corporations-just 
as it would apply to you or me. If I robbed a bank, I'd expect more 
punishment than a stern warning not to do it again. At the very 
least, I imagine I'd be required to forfeit my ill-gotten gains 
(which, in Microsoft's case, amounts to tens of billions of 
dollars), in addition to harsh punitive measures. If Microsoft's 
punishment is any less severe-well, then I guess I'll know 
what the law is worth.
    Thank you for your kind consideration.
    Scott Maxwell
    1403 Dominion Ave N
    Pasadena, CA 91104



MTC-00020129

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:30am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors and to consumers in 
general.
    It is my belief, as a computer user and as a professional in the 
computer industry for more that 20 years, that MicroSoft has caused 
as much harm as they have good in the software industry. As a 
minimum I say that the DOJ and US government should be putting a 
stop to Microsoft's monopoly by forcing them to;
    A) keep their file formats non proprietary, documented and open
    B) unbundle applications from the operating system
    C) release the source code for the operating system
    D) ensure that they include and adhere to industry standards and 
protocols that allow communication and data sharing between 
MicroSoft and non MicroSoft products alike. i.e. no more embracing 
and extending a standard.
    E) stop using its position to prevent suppliers of computer 
hardware products from offering or installing alternative non 
MicroSoft software products in addition too or instead of MicroSoft 
software on their products.
    As it is proposed the current settlement simply appears that the 
government is unable to negotiate the necessary settlement to 
protect and act in its citizens best interest.
    Thank you for this opportunity express my opinion about this 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    William T. Tilton
    1304 W. Kirby Ave.
    Champaign, Illinois 61821
    [email protected]



MTC-00020130

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Mills
    294 Cove Road
    Shelbyville, KY 40065-8924



MTC-00020131

From: Steffen Hulegaard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is horribly unfair to everyone but 
Microsoft
    Microsoft is an unmistakable monopoly. Microsoft systematically 
exploits both economies of scale and economies of scope (so-called 
network economies) to force free market failure. The marginal cost 
of software production is zero. That is a novelty for a item of 
commerce. The strong synergy between one ``software'' 
product and the next is a new and uniquely powerful economy of scope 
(network economy). These economies induce a massive free market 
failure (for software) and promote the formation of a nasty 
monopoly. Microsoft is that monopoly. Even worse, consumers of 
software products labor under severe informational constraints. They 
are often not able to rationally judge some of the critical claims 
made for or against software products. Fear, uncertainty and doubt 
(FUD) have become incredibly powerful factors in the software 
markets. Microsoft systematically exploits these information 
externalities to further restrain the free markets (i.e. to solidify 
it's monopoly). As if this weren't enough, Microsoft also engages in 
a wide variety of specifically illegal business practices. Microsoft 
has been tried and convicted.
    The damage to the U.S. economy is huge. As we speak, our 
leadership in the software industry dissipates as the world moves to 
open-source software like Linux. Microsoft's monopoly is triple 
strong ... but the world's consumers are retaliating. Slowly. 
Steadily. Inexorably. Microsoft can no longer hold back innovation 
while foisting layers of increasingly expensive, utterly proprietary 
(addictive), fat, slow, bloated, insecure and buggy software on the 
world. It is hard to imagine that the basic operating system 
technology of the 1960's is still missing from the likes of MS-
Windows ME. Microsoft's big lies about ``innovation'' 
don't fool everyone. The terms of trade are being redressed. 
Microsoft's shackles on software innovation will be broken.
    Much of the software industry might be torn down to get rid of 
Microsoft. The U.S.A. will regret this unnecessary price. Rather 
than let Microsoft buy the proposed wrist slap of a penalty, we 
should all insist that Microsoft be broken up into at least as many 
pieces as the pre-breakup AT&T. The proposed 
``settlement'' is a farce. It does nothing to the 
Microsoft monopoly.
    It even allows them to extend and strengthen their unfair 
monopoly. It shakes my confidence in the justice system itself. Is 
justice for sale?
    Please consider that Microsoft is demanding that employees and 
relatives of employees send in comments supporting of the proposed 
settlement. The world sees that Microsoft is making a complete 
mockery of U.S. Law. Microsoft spends freely on transparent and 
egregious tricks to arrogantly ``buy'' justice. Please re-
read Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings in this case. The truth 
matters. A real remedy is required. The proposed remedy is a 
despicable joke.
    Steffen Hulegaard
    50 Baccharis Place
    Tiburon, California 94920



MTC-00020132

From: Clay Berlo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I am a Canadian citizen, I feel the effects of the 
massive influence Microsoft has 


[[Page 26837]]


over the computer industry overall, and witness every day its 
dominance of end-user computing. If I could suggest any one thing 
that might make either a settlement or punishment for Microsoft's 
abuse of its monopoly status, it would be this: for as long as 
Microsoft continues to practice predatory, illegal tactics as 
standard business, bar the use of their operating systems and 
software products from use within any governmental organization, 
including all educational and health care institutions.
    While ``suffering'' through the alternatives available 
would be a difficult transition, supporting transgressions only 
provides further opportunities to transgress. Supporting what little 
competition remains for Microsoft would serve to provide a means to 
stimulate real competition once again within the computer industry.
    Thank you,
    Clay
    [email protected]
    www.clay.berlo.com



MTC-00020133

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:33am
Subject: Greetings !
    Greetings !
    I don't agree with this ruling in Microsoft vs. DOJ. Our great 
country is built on justice and liberty for all, not by rewarding 
the guilty and punishing the good. Microsoft is the guilty party, 
and if the punishment is not strong enough, it will continue on with 
it's current behavior, as it has done so many times in the past. 
Please do not make the same mistake. I believe one cannot buy 
justice in these great United States of America.
    Thanks.
    Faisal Islam
    2116 Rose Hill Road
    Carrollton, TX 75007



MTC-00020134

From: Bruce Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:31am
Subject: Proposed settlement with Microsoft
    The proposed settlement does nothing to control the use of 
monopoly power by Microsoft to further expand its dominance of the 
software market. If Microsoft were required to document the API 
calls that their present and future office suites uses then other 
Operating systems could emulate Microsoft windows allowing customers 
more choices in the hardware and software that would be appealing to 
businesses.



MTC-00020136

From: ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm against the ruling.
    API disribution timing is to late & is hardly inforceable 
with the proposed language.
    Otherwise I just have a complete lack of confidence in the 
ablitiy of the Gov. to control the MS monopoly without splitting 
MS's OS monopoly from its software business. MS consistantly limits 
techonological advances available to the masses. Every feature of 
the MS OS's has previously existed in other OS's. Every Microsoft OS 
has been behind the times and that is directly attributable to its 
monopolist policies.
    IF YOU CAN'T SPLIT MICROSOFT(which you should) THEN PLEASE DON'T 
LET THEM LOOPHOLE THE DECISIONS.
    Ross M. DeStafeno
    Computer Systems Engineer



MTC-00020138

From: Stephen Kick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If this settlement is approved then Microsoft will have free 
reign to do what ever they want. As a minimum all interfaces and 
file formats for their products should be freely available.



MTC-00020139

From: Bill Udell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as proposed is a bad idea.
    -Bill Udell



MTC-00020140

From: Don Cumbest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a great company. Many consumers benefit from the 
compatibility of its operating systems. The costs are reasonable. 
The company improves its products. Internet Explorer is FREE. Having 
a standard for computers is great. It makes it easier for most 
people to use computers.



MTC-00020141

From: Ken Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MicroSoft's proposed settlement, which barely slaps MicroSoft on 
the wrist while incidentally giving that company a welcome and 
gratuitous entry into the K-12 (education) market, is not only 
inadequate, but would be a glaring scandal to anybody that 
understands the issues involved.
    Ken Watson
    Senior Systems Technologist,
    Vancouver Teleport Ltd.
    +1-604-881-8500
    +1-866-881-8500 NA toll-free
    +1-604-881-0159 fax



MTC-00020142

From: Bob Horvath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been in the software industry for 18 years. I have 
watched Microsoft grow to become the monopoly it is today. It has 
clearly done this not through technical innovation, as they would 
like people to think, but by making business agreements which 
destroy competition. This is clear looking at past court cases, as 
well as the recent antitrust case.
    The settlement is clealy political, and will not do a thing to 
change Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. Please reconsider this 
settlement agreement.
    The other monopoly that has not been looked at is Office file 
formats. These have been forced onto consumers in a way that ensures 
Microsoft will get lots of upgrade business.
    The settelement is much too narrow, as it limits itself to 
products that already exists, NOT future ones.
    I am very disappointed in the antritrust division, and feel let 
down.



MTC-00020143

From: Noel Sturm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is NOT in the best interest of the 
public or the computer industry.
    Dr. Noel S. Sturm, Associate Professor of Chemistry
    California State University
    1000 E. Victoria
    Carson, CA 90747
    (310)243-3383



MTC-00020144

From: Kenneth Frost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to let you know that I am against the current 
Microsoft antitrust settlement that was reached by the DOJ and 
Microsoft. This does not go far enough to stop the continued abuse 
of the public trust through illegal monopolistic practices. The 
abuse consists of Microsoft's use of proprietary formats and 
protocols that have the intent of locking me into using their 
operating systems and software products.
    With most people, through ignorance, buying into Microsoft's 
solutions, the end result is no choice and no competition. It is 
only a matter of time, where I will be forced to use Microsoft 
services to gain access to the internet or for that matter to do 
anything with a computer. This to me is no choice at all and hurts 
me and other consumers like me. I currently cannot purchase a system 
that comes with a dual boot hard drive where I can either boot into 
Redhat linux or boot into Microsoft windows. This is a product of 
Microsoft's restrictive licensing practices with OEM's.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future. It is my 
belief that a very strong set of strictures must be placed on 
convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to continue 
their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Frost
    [email protected]
    5 Golden Hill Lane


[[Page 26838]]


    Shelton, CT 06484
    Tel: 203-929-8267



MTC-00020145

From: Andrew Sweger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Renata B. Hesse, et al.:
    I think the currently proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad 
idea that will only encourage future abuse of the consumer's best 
interests as well as the industry.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Barak Sweger
    13715 Ashworth Ave N
    Seattle, WA 98133-7119



MTC-00020146

From: Jared Counts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Jared Counts, and I do not believe that Microsoft 
should be mollycoddled by the federal government. Letting them buy 
their way out of this suit would be letting them exercise what got 
them into this suit in the first place. We cannot have one 
corporation dictating how the world does their computing, and 
silencing the competition through the sheer weight of their numbers 
and/or money. They are not l33t. They deserve de4th. Thank you.



MTC-00020147

From: Larry Bogert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft
    I am against the current settlement of DOJ vs. Microsoft.
    Larry Bogert
    Oradell, NJ



MTC-00020148

From: Geoffrey Prewett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing this letter to express my opinions of the Justice 
Department's proposed settlement of the Microsoft case. The proposed 
settlement attempts to prevent the specific abuses of monopoly power 
that were used against Netscape. However, the proposed settlement 
has two major flaws: it does not provide for a punishment for the 
abuses and it does not effectively prevent further abuses.
    When a person is found guilty of breaking a law, a punishment is 
demanded for breaking the law. The punishment is payment for 
breaking the law; atonement, as far as it is possible. The 
punishment also limits the dishonest gain that the guilty party can 
realize from the breaking the law. The proposed settlement does not 
appear to contain any punishment for Microsoft, only remedies aimed 
at preventing future trespasses. The 1994 consent agreement was 
designed to prevent future trespasses; it failed. Twice Microsoft 
has been guilty and a punishment needs to be required. The proposed 
settlement includes no such punishment.
    Not only does the proposed settlement contain only prevention 
for the future, and no punishment, but the prevention is not 
effective. First, Microsoft has repeatedly and flagrantly violated 
the spirit, if not letter, of the law. During the trial its officers 
and employees have shown a contempt for the court by, among other 
things, allegedly rigging demos. The company has shown no 
contriteness since then, but has continued business as usual. There 
is nothing to suggest that Microsoft is going to obey the spirit of 
the proposed settlement any more than the 1994 agreement. Second, 
the proposed settlement addresses the specific complaints at the 
time of the trial but does not address the fundamental problems 
which caused the complaints. For instance, the proposed settlement 
address the licensing of certain, specific desktop icons. It does 
not prohibit the principle that caused the licensing problem: the 
selling of discounted versions of Windows provided that OEMs engage 
in certain behavior with respect to *non Microsoft* products. Under 
the proposed settlement, the only provision is that Microsoft cannot 
place restrictions on browser icons. It may still provide discounts 
if computer manufacturers do not ship computers with competing 
operating systems, for example.
    I conclusion, I oppose the proposed settlement because it 
provides no punishment for Microsoft's actions and because the 
prevention remedies will not be effective in promoting competition 
in areas other than the browser.
    Sincerely,
    Geoff Prewett
    Software Engineer



MTC-00020149

From: Joseph ``Jofish'' Kaye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed 
settlement does not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft 
in the past, nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in 
the future. The vast majority of the provisions within the 
settlement only formalize the status quo. Of the remaining 
provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing 
its current monopoly position in the operating system market. This 
is especially important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's 
past transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does 
nothing to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no 
provisions that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only 
prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. This goes against 
the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded. Microsoft's behavior during the trial and 
during this comment period has shown an almost total lack of respect 
for justice; I encourage you to rethink the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Kaye
    [email protected]
    Somerville, MA



MTC-00020150

From: Stephen Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear USDOJ,
    Because this is something of a new issue in the courts, it seems 
the proposed is too vague to adequately protect the software 
developers from Microsofts restrictive licensing practices. In 
several cases, it allows Microsoft to include provisions in its 
licenses that could potentially prevent the distribution of software 
that competes with other Microsoft products based on the use of one 
Microsoft product in the competing software's development or 
distribution. This is harmful to the free development of software 
and the improvement of the software market as a whole, and is 
restrictive and somewhat incapacitating for future software 
developers such as myself. Please revise the final judgment to 
protect hard working Americans from the restrictive and debilitating 
licensing practices of Microsoft, so that the electronic community 
can continue to grow and flourish in the United States.
    Stephen Friedman
    Harvey Mudd College
    Computer Science/Engineering 2003



MTC-00020151

From: Michael Casteel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software professional who owned a sizable software 
company (not a competitor to Microsoft) for 20 years, giving me 
considerable exposure to and experience in the software market. I 
agree with the editor of eWeek, a computer trade periodical, that 
``...the proposed settlement of the United States of America 
and nine states vs. Microsoft is as toothless as the consent decree 
of 1995. Microsoft again must make only nominal behavior changes. In 
return, it gains legal protection for many practices that landed it 
in court.'' From the viewpoint of this software professional, 
the proposed settlement is an unfunny joke, and it should be 
rejected as counter to the public interest.
    1. This agreement seems to permit Microsoft to continue to 
impede third-party products that sold less than 1-million units the 
year before. This simply permits Microsoft to impede innovation. 
New, 


[[Page 26839]]


innovative products often sell fewer than 1-million units in 
their early years.
    2. The agreement appears to permit Microsoft to keep secret APIs 
that ``compromise the security of ... anti-piracy, anti-virus, 
software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or 
authentication systems''. This means that competition and 
innovation will continue to be stifled in areas such as multimedia, 
e-commerce, messaging and file sharing, while Microsoft's monopoly 
power will continue to be enhanced.
    3. The agreement specifically excludes servers, PDAs and 
handhelds, and maybe tablet PCs. This leaves Microsoft free to 
continue to leverage its desktop monopoly in order to impede 
competition and innovation in these areas, which are not yet 
monopolized by Microsoft.
    4. The agreement seems to give Microsoft legal protection to add 
whatever it wishes to its operating systems. These terms will 
unbridle Microsoft to freely use its monopoly power to crush any 
future innovative competition in the same way it crushed Netscape. 
This would entitle them to bundle a clone of any innovative 
technology which becomes popular with the ``operating 
system'' for ``free'' and thus cut off the 
innovator's revenue stream. In Mr. Gates'' words, their 
``air supply''. Then, Microsoft can continue to sell 
upgrades to the new, expanded ``operating system'' in 
order to capture that revenue.
    5. Finally, where is the penalty for their past illegal 
behavior?
    Microsoft's monopoly abuse has in the past impeded innovation by 
crushing (and thus making examples of) innovators such as Netscape. 
The industry, and the public interest, benefit from *more* 
innovators in software, not fewer. Please, even if you do not 
extract a penalty for past abuses, do something to prevent Microsoft 
from continuing to abuse its monopoly position by stifling 
competition. Most of the innovation in our industry comes from 
outside Microsoft. Failing to restrain Microsoft will cause our 
industry, and the public interest, to suffer.
    Mike Casteel
    [email protected] Seattle, WA



MTC-00020152

From: markthome
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:38am
Subject: AOL court case against Microsoft
    Dear Sir/ Madam:
    I hope that you will try your utmost to get the parties involved 
in technology competition to try and cooperate with each other so 
we, the consumers, will have the benefit of their talents through 
better and cheaper technological advancements.
    I feel these court cases are a burden on the economy, and share 
a lot of the blame for the decreased value in 401k's. Too bad that 
the people going to court over these matters, don't share in the 
loss of savings plans that the rest of us experience.
    Respectfully,
    Mark W. Thome., Bellevue, Washington 425-641-1979



MTC-00020153

From: Craig Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    It sickens me to see Microsoft get away with corporate murder 
``for the good of the people''
    It sickens me to read a verdict form a judge that finds guilt 
with Microsoft practices and no ``real'' punishment is 
given.
    It sickens me to see Microsoft continue its backstabbing 
tactics, unfairly squeezing out competition all while putting on a 
sham in the courtroom and public media purporting thier innocence.
    It sickens me that as ``punishment'' Microsoft gets to 
give away ``free'' software which in reality gains them 
new customers and benefits them.
    It sickens me to know that no matter what happens, the 
punishment will be inconsequntal to Microsoft and will not 
discourage continued illegal behaviour.
    It sickens me to know that our Justice Department is teaching 
future business leaders that the ``Microsoft way'' is the 
best way to do buisness in America.
    Shame on you all.
    Craig Mitchell



MTC-00020154

From: Alexey Mohr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's antitrust practices are far-reaching and of 
substantial negative impact to essentially every single market that 
they feel it is their place to enter. Something has to be done 
before there are Microsoft-brand cars and Microsoft-brand cereals.
    Their stagnation in those markets that they have managed to 
completely monopolize vividly represents the exact fears of those 
who initially composed the various laws against anti-competitive 
practices. As a user of Macintosh computers, the only truly viable 
alternative to Windows-PCs for consumers, and as a 4-year veteran of 
MacOS/Windows phone technical support for Boston University, I can 
honestly say that Microsoft's products are objectively inferior yet 
painfully ubiquitous.
    Simply put, they must be stopped.
    They have managed to destroy competition in one genre after 
another, and they only keep expanding. They are a plague upon the 
entire tech industry. A more drastic perspective demonstrates that 
they are even quite dangerous for national security; by forcing the 
military and the federal government to use their utterly flawed 
software due to a complete lack of viable alternatives, they put the 
entire country at great risk. In this information age where 
terrorists turn to computer hacking, having America's most valuable 
secrets protected by the spit and gum that is Windows XP is 
blatantly detrimental to the entire nation, and potentially the 
entire world.
    Fining them is pointless. As is giving them babysitters to watch 
their every move. The only solution is to split the company into 
several different divisions and force competition between them. 
Please act quickly, for the good of every person exposed to modern 
technology.
    - Alexey Mohr, [email protected]



MTC-00020155

From: matthew@epiphanycorp. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir or madam:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea.
    It is not even remotely sufficient to ensure that they do not 
continue to use their monopoly in computer operating systems to 
destroy competition in other areas.
    Microsoft has a long and well-documented history of abuse of 
their monopoly position to gain advantage in other areas, and, 
moreover, a flagrantly unrepentant stance on all their previous 
actions, deemed illegal in the courts. Implementing a solution which 
is simply expeditious, but has no true or lasting effect, will mean 
that Microsoft will continue to use their dominance in computer 
operating systems to extend their dominance into new areas.
    In addition the to deleterious effect of allowing Microsoft to 
continue stifling innovation, this settlement seems to say that a 
company can engage persistently in patently illegal behavior, if it 
is big enough, rich enough, and important enough. This is not the 
kind of foundation we want to lay for future businesses- 
particularly in the vital area of information technology.
    Matthew Eernisse
    Houston, Texas



MTC-00020156

From: Eric Howland-Mozilla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. I 
feel that the open letter composed by Dan Kegel (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html) does a good job of describing some 
of the problems with the settlement.
    As a programmer, I am particularly concerned about the ability 
of software produced by other companies to interact with the 
Microsoft's operating systems (not just the ones listed in 
definition U but all Microsoft operating systems). I am also 
concerned that the restrictions against competing products that 
Microsoft has included in their licenses and the punitive behavior 
that Microsoft has displayed toward companies selling computers 
using competing operating systems are not stopped.
    These would seem to be the heart of any settlement of an 
antitrust case. As a programmer I would encourage that in addition 
to the cessation of the above mentioned monopoly behavior that 
Microsoft be required to publish all API's (including those for 
their application software) and file formats (which are needed for 
creating interoperative programs).
    Sincerely,
    Eric Howland


[[Page 26840]]




MTC-00020157

From: Scott Morningstar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I feel that the proposed settlement is seriously flawed on a 
number of grounds, including the fact that Microsoft discriminates 
against ISVs who ship Open Source applications. The proposed 
settlement does not address this problem. To demonstrate my point, 
read the Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA, which states: 
... you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that 
contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, 
any software that is distributed as free software, open source 
software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models 
... Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, 
software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses 
or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar 
to any of the following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or 
Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the 
Mozilla Public License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun 
Community Source License (SCSL); ... Many Windows APIs, including 
Media Encoder, are shipped by Microsoft as add-on SDKs with 
associated redistributable components. Applications that wish to use 
them must include the add-ons, even though they might later become a 
standard part of Windows. Microsoft often provides those SDKs under 
End User License Agreements (EULAs) prohibiting their use with Open 
Source applications.
    This harms ISVs who choose to distribute their applications 
under Open Source licenses; they must hope that the enduser has a 
sufficiently up-to-date version of the addon API installed, which is 
often not the case. Applications potentially harmed by this kind of 
EULA include the competing middleware product Netscape 6 and the 
competing office suite StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause 
support problems for, and discourage the use of, competing 
middleware and office suites. Additionally, since Open Source 
applications tend to also run on non-Microsoft operating systems, 
any resulting loss of market share by Open Source applications 
indirectly harms competing operating systems.
    Please take this into consideration when finalizing the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Morningstar
    Information Systems Manager
    Weaver Street Market
    101a E Weaver Street
    Carrboro, NC 27510



MTC-00020158

From: GA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00020158-0001 ??le:///C/win/temp/tmp.

    Dear Sirs,
    After having read a bit about the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft I am dismayed that they are getting off so lightly.
    The have proven to be anti-competative and a remedy that 
prevents them from throwing their mussle around is needed.
    Please read the three articles in the links below that suggest 
where the deficiencies and loopholes in the proposed settlement 
exist.
    This group is a well informed and industry respected worldwide. 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22684.html http://
www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22647.html http://
www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22711.html
    Microsoft produce good enough products to be able to play fairly 
and compete with the rest of the world. They shouldn't be allowed to 
squash and kill off competition.
    Regards,
    George
    00020158-0002
    of 1
    01/29/2002 9:30



MTC-00020159

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method for states 
to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only 
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the 
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Gilbertson
    26395 Waterford Circle
    Lake Forest, CA 92630-6515



MTC-00020160

From: James M. Frisby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a professional software developer and a concerned citizen, I 
wish to state my opposition to the Revised Proposed Final Judgement 
(RPFJ) in the Microsoft anti-trust case. While I believe it has 
several deficiencies, one I find particularly disconcerting is 
within the ``multi-boot'' provisions (RPFJ, III(A)(2) and 
III(C)(4)). Certainly, I applaud the efforts of the Department of 
Justice to craft these provisions, since allowing multi-boot 
machines would help to restore competition in the operating system 
(OS) market. I nevertheless believe they suffer from a fatal flaw 
(and possibly two) which will render them toothless.
    The multi-boot provisions state only that Microsoft must not 
``retaliate against'' OEMs who wish to sell a multi-boot 
system; or contractually prohibit an OEM from selling a multi-boot 
system. There is no provision forbidding Microsoft from altering its 
OS in such a way that it can detect and disable non-Microsoft OSes, 
or to disable itself until either the OEM or the user removes any 
non-Microsoft OSes.* Given the District Court's findings and 
conclusions that Microsoft has created such deliberate technical 
incompatibilities in the past (Findings of Fact, VI(A); Conclusions 
of Law, I(A)(2)(b)), any settlement which does not prohibit such 
means of subverting competition necessarily fails to secure for the 
public a choice in OSes.
    Also, on December 11, 2001, Microsoft was granted U.S. Patent 
number 6,300,670, for a ``Digital Rights Management Operating 
System'' (DRMOS). Any PC created by an OEM which implements 
this patent** will, by design, refuse to boot an OS that is not a 
DRMOS. Since Microsoft holds this patent, it will be in the position 
of deciding which non-Microsoft OSes it will permit to multi-boot on 
a PC implementing DRMOS.
    While I realize there is a provision requiring Microsoft to 
license intellectual property on ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' terms (RPFJ, III(I)(1)), there is also an 
explicit exemption with regard to DRM (RPFJ, III(J)(1) (and possibly 
III(J)(2); ``anti-piracy systems'' and ``license 
enforcement mechanisms'' might be construed to mean the same 
thing as ``digital rights management'')). Since the DRMOS 
patent was not awarded until over a month after the RPFJ was 
submitted to the Court, it seems reasonable that these provisions 
should be, at a minimum, re-examined to determine the effect of the 
patent upon them.
    For the foregoing reasons, I request that the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgement be withdrawn by the Department of Justice; or 
failing that, rejected by the Court.
    Sincerely,
    James M. Frisby
    5615 Beverly Hills Dr. Apt. C
    Columbus, OH 43213
    * From a technical perspective, doing this would require either 
that Microsoft's OS is installed after the non-Microsoft OS; or 
failing that, that the Microsoft OS is booted at least once. 
Currently, Microsoft's OSes already ``hide'' access to 
alternative OSes in the former case (by over-writing any pre-
existing boot-loader). In the latter, Microsoft is free to 
contractually oblige the OEM to make its OS the 
``default'' OS on any multi-boot system, virtually 
guaranteeing that it will boot at least once. Further, it is my lay 
opinion that RPFJ III(H)(3) will not prevent this behavior since it 
only covers OEMs'' rights in III(C) (and not III(A)), and even 
then, only refers to ``icons, shortcuts or menu 


[[Page 26841]]


entries'', not boot-loaders. ** In the wake of Napster, there is ample evidence of growing pressure on OEMs to do just this from the private 
sector (in the form of the Recording Industry Association of America 
(RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)), as well 
as the public sector. In the former case, the MPAA and RIAA are 
looking to DVD and DVD-Audio, respectively, as a means of implementing 
hardware-based DRM, and are actively exploring software-based 
solutions. Some members of the RIAA have gone so far as to alter 
their compact discs in such a way that PCs can no longer play them. 
Since this devalues a PC for some users, it sends a clear signal to 
OEMs that DRM should become standard on all PCs.
    On the public side, there is draft legislation in the Senate 
that would essentially mandate DRM in all consumer electronic 
devices. While draft legislation is a far cry from the full force of 
law, it sends a signal to the private sector that DRM is a topic of 
increasing importance within Congress, and not to be taken lightly. 
(Yes, hearings on the ``Security Systems Standards and 
Certifications Act'' (SSSCA) were indefinitely postponed after 
the events of September 11, 2001, but relatively mundane issues such 
as copyright infringement will eventually get Congress'' 
attention again.)



MTC-00020161

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Vincent Crisci
    222 Cibolo Branch
    Boerne, TX 78006-3205



MTC-00020162

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Roberg
    1219 Canyon View Drive
    La Verne, CA 91750



MTC-00020163

From: Gene Choy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir,
    The settlement is a bad deal for US consumers and enterprises 
for it limits innovation and increase security risks for lack of 
diversity in IT solution.
    Gene



MTC-00020164

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method for states 
to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only 
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the 
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Baker
    7944 Timber Horn Ct
    Las Vegas, NV 89147



MTC-00020165

From: Steve Fink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft's presence has an absolutely chilling effect on 
innovation in the computer industry. No startup's business plan is 
complete without a section on ``what if we're actually 
successful enough that Microsoft notices and squashes us like a 
bug?'' Today, only the largest companies can afford to take any 
speculative steps towards areas covered by Microsoft's monopoly, 
because anybody smaller simply cannot afford the risk. This is not 
simply fair competition; if it were fair competition, a company with 
a superior product could have a clear chance to gain significant 
market share. As it is, a company must be careful not to be too 
superior too soon. The source of Microsoft's threat is not the 
quality of its products, but the influence it exerts due to its 
near-total ownership of many aspects of computing.
    The proposed settlement is clearly insufficient to remedy this 
situation. The settlement forbids some, but not all, of the 
-existing- practices that Microsoft engages in. Once 
Microsoft is barred from those, it will quite naturally intensify 
the remaining monopolistic practices and develop others in areas 
that the settlement does not cover. In effect, Microsoft's claim of 
massive innovation will at last be realized!
    The whole settlement seems too flawed for me to go through piece 
by piece to discuss why I disagree with it, but consider for example 
its attempt to allow companies to develop products that interoperate 
with Microsoft's OS and middleware platforms. Microsoft still has 
the ability to change document formats, fail to adequately document 
the new or existing formats, and can easily change protocols or APIs 
without notifying ISVs until too late.
    Fundamentally, I believe the situation needs to be looked at 
from an entrepreneur's point of view. The entrepreneur has an idea 
for a superior product that is similar to something Microsoft sells. 
Today, he'd have to be utterly insane to risk his time and money in 
pursuing his idea. If this settlement is accepted, he will only need 
to be irrational. A quantitative improvement, but not a qualitative 
one- the conclusion for a rational person is the same.
    -Steve Fink, a concerned computer professional



MTC-00020166

From: John Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my hopes that the court will reject the 
proposed settlement in Microsoft's current anti-trust case. I 
believe that the nature of Microsoft's management will make it 
difficult for any in-company overseer to do his job properly and 
without the appearance of a conflict of interest.
    But my chief concern is that Microsoft's current software 
offerings, chiefly WindowsXP, are themselves extremely questionable 
considering what has been found in court about Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. In short, I believe that Microsoft's current 
behavior is not addressed by the settlement and that unless the 
settlement is modified, it will only lead to further anti-trust 
litigation.
    There is also the matter that as far as I can tell, Microsoft is 
being allowed to keep the fruits of its unlawful conduct. Without 
court-ordered access to Microsoft's sales records, OEMs who may have 
a legitimate right to sue Microsoft over its pricing practices will 
not have the grounds to do so. Further, I don't believe that the 
settlement effectively addresses the potential of retaliation by 
Microsoft against these OEMs.



[[Page 26842]]


    These and other concerns prompt me to ask that the court please 
reject the proposed settlement.
    John P. Murphy, BSEE, BSCpE
    Westfield, MA



MTC-00020167

From: Dixie Flatline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I must add my voice and agree that this settlement is a bad 
idea. Can we say ``Mother of Enron''?
    Best regards,
    Dixie mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00020168

From: Josh Koenig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the DOJ's proposed final settlement on the Microsoft 
matter a step in the right direction, but lacking in many key areas. 
I am writing as provided under the Tunny act that you might consider 
my opinion as one computer-using citizen of these United States of 
America. The DOJ's proposed final resolution should include specific 
measures which insure that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers 
against non-Microsoft operating systems which implement the APIs 
needed to run application programs written for Windows. This will 
allow non-Microsoft programmers to write alternative middleware for 
other operating systems that will operate Windows-based 
applications. An example of this is WINE for Linux.
    By not providing some protection for software vendors engaged in 
making Windows-compatible operating systems, the DOJ is missing a 
key opportunity to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible 
operating system market.
    Additionally, file-formats (e.g. Microsoft Word) should be 
publicly documented so to allow easier exchanging of documents and 
content between platforms. This is one measure that can only serve 
to help the end user by allowing more applications to interoperate 
on the same documents.
    A host of other helpful and pro-competition suggestions can be 
found at the following URL: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    cheers
    -josh
    I love America, and I mean that in the fullest possible sense. 
This country is grounded in participatory democracy. Citizens must 
educate and involve themselves in the affairs of government. Be a 
citizen, not just a consumer.



MTC-00020169

From: kevin morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Kevin Morgan
    1395 Saratoga Ave, #14
    San Jose, CA 95129



MTC-00020170

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has 
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; 
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free 
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of 
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most 
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this 
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Lynn Ferkaluk
    8534 Blue Ridge Avenue
    Hickory Hills, IL 60457-1059



MTC-00020171

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has 
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; 
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free 
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of 
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most 
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    James Mowrey
    102 S 18th Street
    Clear Lake, IA 50428



MTC-00020172

From: Julius T. Abadilla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is an ideal objective in an ideal world to be able to control 
all the ``giants'' in the industry, thus the ruling that 
Microsoft was a monopolist and has broken the law. That ruling, I 
believe, was intended to rein in Microsoft. However, that same 
ruling did produce an unintended result, i.e., it opened up a lot of 
grounds for uncalled for lawsuits. As I have always stated, there 
should be a clear signpost on when a developing company has passed 
the stage wherein they are not anymore considered a developing 
company. Then, apply the rules of anti-competitive ruling to the 
fullest extent of the law. This is for control purposes, as far as 
the State is concerned. Without this clear ``signpost'', 
we will always be penalizing highly successful companies, like 
Microsoft, when we deem them to be too successful to be feared. This 
method being applied to Microsoft now will only hurt all of us 
further. What we should be doing instead is setting up a clear 
groundwork for technological development, encouraging and rewarding 
market leadership and promoting healthy competition. I fear that if 
this is not resolved quickly, no company now will dare to become too 
successful for fear of being the next Microsoft, in terms of 
litigation.
    Hope we can undo some of the harm already done.
    Thank you,
    Julius T. Abadilla



MTC-00020173

From: Dale Siemer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    If you in your usual ignorance insist on punishing one the 
premier business ventures in the nation, whatever monies you elect 
to fleese from Microsoft should be dispursed to those of us who have 
spent our hard-earned money acquiring their products! It was this 
``witch-hunt'' that started the depression we are all now 
trying to endure.
    Wake up and smell the coffee, show some sign of 
intellegence......
    Dale Siemer
    PO Box 96
    Lewistown, MT 59457-0096Get more from the Web. FREE MSN 
Explorer download :



MTC-00020174

From: David Benfell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    David Benfell



MTC-00020175

From: Derek Pluchinski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should not be allowed to continue to proliferate it's 
products at the expense of competitors. It seems that every PC comes 
with Windows pre-installed and Windows comes with pre-installed 
software such as Microsoft's Web browser Internet Explorer. This has 
put a huge dent in Netscape's market share of the Communicator web 
browser.
    And then recently, I read about a recent court decision that 
ordered Microsoft to give hundreds of millions of dollars of free 
software to certain financially strapped 


[[Page 26843]]


schools. That would not be a penalty at all. It was an golden 
opportunity for Microsoft to further entrench itself in the school 
system at the expense of Apple Computer and their Macintosh platform. 
In that case, Microsoft should give money to these schools to buy 
software and hardware from whomever they choose, giving Apple computer 
a chance.
    Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Derek Pluchinski



MTC-00020176

From: brandon donahue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find Microsoft's proposed settlement of its pending civil 
suits absurd. In response to claims of being a monopoly and 
maintaining a stranglehold on the operating system, web browser, and 
office suite markets Microsoft suggests that it could make amends by 
providing schools with its products. Microsoft wants to respond to 
monopoly claims by flooding the market and targeting children with 
its products. One cannot possibly correct a wrong by perpetuating 
it. And yet this is what Microsoft has suggested. This defies all 
logic. I am utterly opposed to this settlement.
    Brandon Donahue
    Moorhead, Minnesota



MTC-00020177

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a disgruntled pc user who has found it increasingly 
problematic and frustrating to use Microsoft products, including its 
popular windows operating system and web browser. Furthermore, I've 
found the problems especially troubling because I'm aware of the 
alternatives that do exist, but which are difficult to purchase on 
new pc systems. This is a direct result I believe, of the monopoly 
power that microsoft has in the industry. I feel the actions of 
Microsoft continue, perhaps even at an accelerated pace, to reduce 
the quality and quantity of choices for pc users. Clearly, the 
settlement for the crimes committed by Microsoft is not enough. I 
would favor a much more aggressive discipline of the company. As it 
stands now, the settlement amounts to little more than a slap on the 
wrist, and judging from Microsoft's behavior since the end of the 
trial, it's actually made things worse for consumers. Thank-you.
    Ryan Scott
    Bloomington, IN
