[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/�7Ematt/
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).
� 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 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.
�7ESean
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:
� 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,
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:
�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,
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 �or 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/
�7Echamblee
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/�7Eacosand 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